ORDER:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY Heard Mr. K.Sreenivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. J.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. The instant is a writ petition which has been filed by the petitioners challenging the award dated 02.02.2015 passed by the Lok Adalat Bench under the District Legal Services Authority at Mahabubnagar in O.S.No.228 of 2014 decided before the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. O.S.No.228 of 2014 was a Suit for partition between Male Sriramulu Goud as the plaintiff and Koukuntla Somaiah Goud as the defendant.

3. According to the petitioners, the property which is in their possession since ages is the Suit schedule property in which the Suit for partition has been compromised before the Lok Adalat and the impugned award has been obtained and they came in actual possession of the property by virtue of a registered sale deed executed in the year 1981 and an unregistered sale deed dated 15.06.1989. The vendors to the petitioners were the mother of respondent No.2 and father of respondent No.3, both of whom are the plaintiff and defendant before the Lok Adalat in O.S.No.228 of

2014.

4. The petitioners herein who are the physical and actual possession holders of the property including title rights in their favour by way of registered sale deed, yet were not made a party in the proceedings before the Trial Court for partition in O.S.No.228 of 2014. Neither was there any averment made in the Suit or anywhere else that the petitioners herein ywere the people who were in actual possession of the Suit schedule property, nor was there any challenge to their title or the registered sale deed in their favour which was in existence by that time proved by the parties in the Suit for partition.

5. According to the petitioners they being in possession of the property also stands established from the mutation proceedings which were drawn and stood decided in favour of the petitioners even though the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had entered appearance and objected the mutation proceedings i.e. Case No.D1/21/2007 which stood decided in favour of the petitioners on 25.01.2014. Whereas, O.S.No.228 of 2014 was filed before the Lok Adalat subsequently. In spite of that, respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not think it proper for making the petitioners herein as a necessary party.

6. The aforesaid factual matrix of the case is in itself sufficient indication that the so-called Suit for partition i.e. O.S.No.228 of 2014 is nothing but a collusive Suit between the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the petitioners herein with a malafide intention of depriving the petitioners their rightful claim over the said property.

7. When the petitioners came to know about the said award passed by the Lok Adalat they immediately filed O.S.No.59 of 2016 for declaring the award dated 02.12.2015 to be null and void and to set-aside the same and further for grant of perpetual injunction seeking restraint against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for interfering with their peaceful possession. The same was subsequently withdrawn in the light of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was said that an award passed by the Lok Adalat could have been challenged by the aggrieved person only by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further revealed during the course of hearing that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have subsequently filed couple of further fresh litigations against the petitioners herein including that of a Suit for injunction and Suit for declaration which are already seized by the Trial Court and in all those subsequent litigations the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have highlighted the award passed by the Lok Adalat.

8. Given the aforesaid admitted factual matrix of the case, particularly considering the manner in which respondent Nos.2 and 3 have colluded together and by way of an collusive Suit got an order in their favour