CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 16-02-2024 The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking the following reliefs :

“(i) Quashing the Award dated

27.06.1998 (Annexure :3) passed by the Lok Adalat, Sasaram in T.S. No.241 of 1997 of the court of Sub-Judge-8, Sasaram.

(ii) Commanding the learned court below to proceed with the T.S.No.241 of 1997 according to the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure.

(iii) Grant any other relief deemed fit and proper.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that Title Suit No.241 of

1997 before the learned Sub Judge-8, Sasaram was disposed of in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties of the suit before Lok Adalat, Sasaram on 27.06.1998. In the said title suit, Pramod Kumar Upadhayay was the plaintiff and Uday Narayan Upadhaya (the father of the present petitioner) and others including this petitioner, who was minor at that time, were the defendants. The grievance of the petitioner is that the properties involved in the impugned award were the ancestral properties of the petitioner and he was having birth right in it being a co- parcener and, for this reason, his rights could not be prejudicially affected by any action of his father (respondent no.10 herein). The petitioner, who was a minor at the time of compromise, was not properly represented in the suit and his interest was not properly protected even by his father.

3. The genealogy, background of the case and family history of the petitioner are quite relevant for better understanding of the case of the petitioner.

One Mahadeo Upadhyay was the common ancestor having two sons:- Dharamraj and Mathura. Mathura has two wives :- Jaumna Kuer and Yashoda Kuer. From Jamuna Kuer, Mathura has a son namely, Uday Narayan, who is respondent no.10 herein. Further, Uday Narayan has two sons; Man Mohan (respondent no.11) and Rajeev (the present petitioner). On the other hand, from Yashoda Kuer, Mathura had four sons; Deena Nath (respondent no.2), Ishwar Dayal (respondent no.3), Pramod Kumar (respondent no.1) and Jai Gobind (who renounced the world). Further, Deena Nath has two sons; Aditya (respondent no.5) and Somjit (respondent no.6). Ishwar Dayal also has two sons; Vikash (respondent no.7) and Anand Bhushan (respondent no.8). Pramod Kumar has a son; Raushan (respondent no.9). Further case of the petitioner is that Dharamraj Upadhayay and Mathura Upadhayay separated and partitioned their properties long time ago and Dharamraj Upadhayay sold his properties measuring 6 acres 69 ½ decimals to Uday Narayan Upadhayay (respondent no.10) vide registered sale deed dated 01.08.1970 for Rs.10,000/- and put him in possession through his father-guardian. This property was acquired from the personal fund of the respondent no.10 provided from his mother’s side and he came in exclusive possession on attaining majority. However, as relationship soured between Mathura Upadhyay and his sons, severance in mess and residence took place. A Title (Partition) Suit No.532 of 1972 was filed in the court of learned Sub Judge, Sasaram in which the respondent no.10 and his mother Yamuna Devi were the plaintiffs and Mathura Upadhyay, Yashoda Devi (second wife of Mathura), Dina Nath and Ishwar Dayal were the defendants. The suit was compromised and compromise decree dated 26.02.1973 was passed and the respondent no.10 and his mother were allotted Schedule ‘Ka’ of suit land. Similarly, Mathura Upadhaya was allotted Schedule ‘Kha’ and Yasoda and her sons got Schedule ‘Ga’ properties. As has already been mentioned that Title Suit No.241 of 1997 came to be filed by the respondent no.1 Pramod Kumar for partition against the respondent no.10 and others which ended in compromise before Lok Adalat and a decree was passed on the basis of compromise.

4. Further case of the petitioner is that he had no knowledge about the Title Suit No.241 of 1997 and the compromise which took place resulting in passing of impugned award and compromise decree. The petitioner came to know about the aforesaid