O R D E R

The present revision petition has been filed challenging a Lok-Adalat award passed on 10.03.2014 in O.S.No.848 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Madurai on the ground of fraud.

2.Factual background:

(i)The suit properties originally belonged to one P.Narayana Iyer who had passed away in the year 1913 leaving behind his son Sivarama Subramania Iyer. The said Sivarama Subramania Iyer had two wives namely P.K.Neelambal and Muthumeenakshi Ammal. The said second wife namely Muthumeenakshi Ammal had a son namely Narayanan (1st defendant) and a daughter by name Neelambal. The first defendant had a son namely Krishnan @ Manikandan (2nd defendant), and two daughters namely Meenambal (plaintiff) and Rukmani (3rd defendant).

(ii)According to the plaintiff, the said Sivarama Subramania Iyer had entered into a registered partition deed on 08.05.1969 along with his son Narayanan in which the suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of Sivarama Subramania Iyer . The said Sivarama Subramania Iyer had passed away on 30.12.1984 without leaving any testament. Hence, the plaintiff, first defendant, second defendant and the third defendant are entitled to each 1/4th share. Based upon the said allegation, the suit for partition was filed for 18 items of the suit schedule properties.

3.The second defendant in the suit namely Krishnan @

Manikandan filed a written statement contending that the Sivarama Subramania Iyer had not died intestate. On the other hand, he had executed a registered Will in favour of his second wife Muthumeenakshi Ammal with regard to the properties that were allotted on 08.05.1969. After the death of Sivarama Subramania Iyer, the properties were enjoyed by Muthumeenakshi Ammal. She had executed a Will in favour of her grandson namely Krishnan, (second defendant) on 30.07.1986. Therefore, the properties are not available for partition. Pending partition suit, the second defendant Krishnan @ Manikandan had executed a registered sale deed in favour of a third party namely V.Ilavarasan alienating a portion of 17th item of the suit schedule property.

4.On 06.03.2014, the purchaser had filed I.A.No.297 of 2014 to implead himself as one of the defendants in the suit. Before the application could be numbered, the said Ilavarasan and his wife had addressed representation to the concerned Court as well as the Secretary of Lok-Adalat on 10.03.2014 that their impleading application is pending and the parties to the suit are attempting to enter into a compromise behind their back. However a compromise was recorded in the Lok-adalat on 10.03.2014. Later on 11.04.2014, I.A.No.297 of 2014 was dismissed on the ground that the suit has already been disposed of by way of a compromise in the Lok-adalat.

5.The third party to the said suit namely V.Ilavarasan had filed the above revision challenging the Lok-adalat award on the ground of fraud.

6.Submissions on the side of the revision petitioner:

(i)The first defendant in the suit namely Narayanan is said to be a person of unsound mind. The first defendant has been represented through his brother-in-law and next friend namely Chandrasekaran in O.S.No.668 of 1987(different suit) on the ground that the first defendant is not keeping good mental health. That apart, the plaintiff and the third defendant had taken a stand before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai that the first defendant Narayanan is a person of unsound mind and they have also succeeded in cancelling the revenue records. However, the present suit namely O.S.No.848 of 2010 has been filed as if Narayanan is a person of good mental health. He had also signed the compromise memo before the Lok-adalat. Therefore, a fraud has been perpetrated by the family members of the said Narayanan who were very well aware of the mental health status of the second defendant.

(ii)In the Lok-adalat award Will dated 10.11.1984 and 30.07.1986 have been set aside without any prayer whatsoever. Only based on these two documents, the r