ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the settlement dated 25.02.2016 passed in O.S. No.31/2014 by the Lok adalat in Lok adalat Case No.34/2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court in the Original Suit and in appropriate places, their ranking in the present petition would also be indicated.

3. The revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.31/14 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharmapuri. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction and for other consequential reliefs.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief in O.S. No.31/14:

The 1st defendant is the step mother of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant is the purchaser of the suit property from the 1st defendant. Initially, after the demise of the plaintiff's father on 17.04.2005, the 1st defendant had gifted the suit property vide a gift deed dated 06.02.2009 to the plaintiff out of love and affection. Later there was a strained relationship between the plaintiff and his step mother, the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant cancelled the gift deed unilaterally on 15.02.2011 and executed a sale deed favouring the 2nd defendant on 31.01.2012.

Therefore the plaintiff had prayed for the following reliefs:

i. Declaring the cancellation deed executed by the 1st defendant in respect of the suit property as null and void.

ii. Declaring the Sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant on 31.01.2012 is null and void.

iii. Granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing disturbance to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit property.

iv. Awarding costs.

5. Written statement was filed by the 2nd defendant denying all the allegations of the plaintiff. This suit was referred to the Lok Adalat on 25.02.2016 in which as per the terms of settlement signed by the plaintiff as well as the 2nd defendant, it was agreed that a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- was paid as consideration for the suit property by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant and therefore it was agreed that the cancellation of gift deed dated 15.02.2011 would be treated as null and void and also the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant would become void in the light of the agreed terms of the settlement. It was also agreed that all the relevant parent documents, patta, chitta, adangal, etc., were to be handed over to the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant would have no right over the suit property. This settlement in Lok Adalat is under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Heard Mr.I. Abrar Mohamed Abdullah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N. Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1,3 and 4.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision in Bhargavi Constructions and another vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others reported in (2018) 13 SCC 480 and M.Antonysamy vs. S. Mumtaj and others reported in (2019) 5 CTC 522 and contended that the High Courts had powers to interfere with the Lok Adalat Award wherein it has been established that fraud has been played on the affected party by the other party and the Lok Adalat Award had been given without knowing about the fraud.

8. The petitioner's main contention in the present petition is that there was a rank violation of the provisions contained in Section 20(4) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. This provision clearly mandates that every Lok Adalat while determining any reference made before it under the Act should be guided by the principles of Justice, equity, fair play and settlement. The 2nd respondent/1st defendant was not at all a party to the Award and both the respondents had joined hands together using clandestine methods to deceive the petitioner and deny his legal rights. Therefore, he had sought for setting aside the Lok Adalat set