The Lok Adalat award must be precise and clear, ensuring fairness and clarity in settlements.

For Petitioners :: Mrs.S.Dhanalakshmi For Respondents :: Mr.E.V.Chandru @ Chandrasekaran for R1 to R3 Mr.J.Vinoth for R4 to R6 ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the Lok Adalat award held on 09.09.2023 in O.S.No.10 of 2019, L.A.No.209 of 2023.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner's husband, Saravana Kumar was settled half share in the suit property by his grandfather Govindhan, by virtue of a registered settlement deed dated 06.07.2009 registered as Document No.2782 of 2009. The other half share was settled in favour of the sixth respondent, who is the brother of the said Saravana Kumar. The first petitioner's husband Saravana Kumar died on

04.12.2017. Since the property remained undivided, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.10 of 2019 before the Sub Court, Attur seeking for the relief of partition. In this suit, the fourth respondent, who is the mother in law, was the first defendant, the fifth respondent was the second defendant and he is the father in law and the sixth respondent was the third defendant, who is the brother in law. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the sixth respondent/brother in law will be entitled for fifty per cent, namely, 52 cents out of the total extent of 1.04 acres. The entire dispute revolves around the entitlement of the petitioners in the balance 52 cents.

3. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat and a joint memo is said to have been filed before the Lok Adalat. For better appreciation, the joint memo is scanned and extracted hereunder:-

4. The above joint memo was acted upon by the Lok Adalat and the petitioners were held to be entitled for 24 cents. The suit was dismissed insofar as the other properties are concerned. That apart, the defendants in the suit were also given visitation rights to see the second petitioner, who is the son of the first petitioner.

5. The main grievance that was raised by the learned counsel for petitioners is that the joint memo was prepared without informing the petitioners about the contents and even during the Lok Adalat, the members did not properly advise the petitioners and the petitioners were not even aware as to the contents of the memo, which was signed by them. Only later, they came to know that instead of allotting 34.6 cents, they have been allotted only 24 cents. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they have not been properly advised and there was an undue haste in making them sign the joint compromise memo.

6. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the third respondent has taken a stand that the terms of compromise memo were agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendants and that the members informed the parties and their respective counsel about the settlement terms and only thereafter, the Lok Adalat award was passed. It is further stated that later the petitioners gave a letter on 23.01.2024 stating that there is an error in the award. The same was not acted upon, since the Lok Adalat award was passed only based on the joint memo filed by the parties and therefore there is no question of correcting the terms of the award.

7. The respondents 4 to 6 have also filed a counter affidavit. They have also taken a stand that both the parties perfectly understood the terms of compromise and only thereafter, it was signed and therefore the petitioners cannot wriggle out of their obligation under the joint memo and that the Lok Adalat award does not suffer from any illegality warranting the interference of this Court. Accordingly, the private respondents have sought for the dismissal of this writ petition.

8. This Court carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel o