Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Not mentioned, Not mentioned
DILIP MEHTA – Appellant
Versus
RAKESH GUPTA & ORS. – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C)No.27806 of 2023)
Summary of Para 9:
Courts have clarified that Lok Adalat awards based on party settlements are final, binding, and executable as civil court decrees, with no statutory appeal available. Challenges to such awards are permissible only through writ proceedings under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution, limited to grounds like lack of consent, jurisdictional defects, or fraud. A civil suit seeking to set aside an award is not maintainable, as writ jurisdiction provides the proper remedy.[9]
Summary of Para 10:
The core principle is that statutory finality of Lok Adalat awards precludes appellate review or ordinary civil remedies, such as suits or collateral attacks treating the award as a decree. While executable as a decree, the award's validity cannot be questioned in civil proceedings; the exclusive challenge route is the High Court's supervisory writ jurisdiction.[10]
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 427 of 2023. By the said judgment, the Division Bench affirmed the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 22367 of 2022. The writ petition had called in question a compromise decree dated 14.05.2022 passed by the Lok Adalat, Jabalpur in R.C.S. No. 229-A of 2022 and the consequential execution proceedings in Execution Case No. EX- A/40/2022, but was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had already invoked the remedy of Signature Not Verified SONIA BHASIN Date: 2025.12.06 Reason:
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
3.1. The appellant is a purchaser of certain immovable property situated at Jabalpur. The said property originally belonged to one Smt. Siya Bai. On 29.11.2008, a power of attorney in respect of the property was executed in favour of respondent No. 3, who is described in the civil proceedings as Virendra Patel. However, on 21.01.2009, an agreement to sell in respect of the property was executed between respondent No. 3 on the one hand and respondents No. 1 and 2, Rakesh Gupta and Neeraj Jain, on the other.
3.2. On the basis of the said power of attorney, a sale deed in favour of one Ganga Prasad Kurariya was thereafter executed on 12.06.2009. Disputes arose between Smt. Siya Bai and the said purchaser. Smt. Siya Bai instituted Civil Suit No. 12-A of 2013 for a declaration that the power of attorney dated 29.11.2008 and the sale deed dated 12.06.2009 were null and void. Another suit was filed by Ganga Prasad Kurariya and certain members of his family seeking permanent injunction against Smt. Siya Bai in respect of the same property.
3.3. In relation to the same transaction, an FIR bearing No. 243 of 2011 was registered at Police Station Barela at the instance of Smt. Siya Bai and her husband Shri Bhagwan Patel. A police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, CrPC was submitted on 09.01.2018 alleging that respondent No. 3 had impersonated as son and successor of Smt. Siya Bai and had used fabricated documents, including the power of attorney dated 29.11.2008, to deal with the property.
3.4. After the demise of Smt. Siya Bai, her husband Shri Bhagwan Patel, asserting himself to be her sole surviving heir, executed a registered sale deed on 17.02.2016 in favour of the appellant’s proprietary concern, M/s Rajul Builders, for a stated consideration of about Rupees Four Crores and Twenty Lakhs. According to the appellant, possession of the property was simultaneously delivered and has continued with him since then.
3.5. Respondents No. 1 and 2 claim rights under the agreement to sell dated 21.01.2009 said to have been executed by respondent No. 3 in their favour. On the basis of that agreement, they instituted a suit for specific performance being R.C.S. No. 229- A of 2022 before the Court of the Civil Judge at Jabalpur against respondent No. 3 alone. The appellant and the original owner’s heirs were not impleaded as parties to that suit.
3.6. In the said suit, a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) was filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant stating that the dispute had been compromised. The statements of the parties were recorded and the compromise was verified. The matter was thereafter placed before the Lok Adalat at Jabalpur.
3.7. On 14.05.2022, the Lok Adalat passed an award in terms of the compromise in R.C.S. No. 229-A of 2022 and a decree for specific performance was drawn.
3.8. On the strength of the decree dated 14.05.2022, a registered sale deed was executed in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 on 22.07.2022 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jabalpur, purporting to convey the same property. Respondents No. 1 and 2 then initiated execution proceedings being Ex
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
