Back
2005(5) Supreme 374
Supreme Court of India
(From Kerala High Court)
Mrs. Ruma Pal & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, JJ.
P.T. Thomas —Appellant
versus
Thomas Job —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4677 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20179/2003)
Decided on 4-8-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Advocate, T.G. Narayanan Nair, Advocate.
For the Respondent : M.P. Vinod, Ajay K. Jain, P. Sajith, Advocates.
Held : We have already discussed about the steps taken by the appellant to serve notice on the respondent and the steps taken by him to perform his obligations and sending of the notice and telegram etc. would not have been done unless the appellant was ready with his obligations and the money all along. The appellant had waited till almost the last day for the respondent to perform his obligations. The High Court, in our view, has failed to note that the courts attempt should be to give life and enforceability to the compromise award and not to defeat it on technical grounds. This is a fit case, in our view, where the Respondent ought to have been directed to execute the sale deed by the extended time, if necessary. The High Court is also not correct in holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time. In our view, the learned Subordinate Judge has rightly extended the time for depositing the money which the High Court has wrongly interfered with. (Para 22)
In our opinion, the award of the Lok Adalat is fictionally deemed to be decrees of Court and therefore the courts have all the powers in relation thereto as it has in relation to a decree passed by itself. This, in our opinion, includes the powers to extend time in appropriate cases. In our opinion, the award passed by the Lok Adalat is the decision of the court itself though arrived at by the simpler method of conciliation instead of the process of arguments in court. The effect is the same. In this connection, the High Court has failed to note that by the award what is put an end to is the appeal in the District Court and thereby the litigations between brothers forever. The view taken by the High Court, in our view, will totally defeat the object and purposes of the Legal Services Authorities Act and render the decision of the Lok Adalat meaningless. (Para 16)
(ii) Post Office Act—Section 27—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 114—Presumption of service of notice—In the notice issued, postman had made the endorsement—Respondent did not receive the notice and it was returned unserved—No obligation cast on appellant to examine the Postman.
Held : The High Court, in our view, has also misinterpreted Section 27 of the Post Office Act. The requirement of Section has been complied with in this case. The reasoning of the High Court on this issue is not correct and not in accordance with factual position. In the notice issued, the Postman has made the endorsement. This presumption is correct in law. He had given notice and intimation. Nevertheless, the respondent did not receive the notice and it was returned unserved. Therefore, in our view, there is no obligation cast on the appellant to examine the Postman as assumed by the High Court. The presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act operates apart from that under the Post Office Act. (Para 15)
The Court that has the authority to extend the time period after the Lok Adalat award, if necessary, is the Court that passed the award or the Court with jurisdiction over the matter. This is because the award of the Lok Adalat is considered equivalent to a decree of the Court, and the Court's inherent powers include the authority to extend time for the performance of obligations under such awards (!) .
Furthermore, the Court that issued the award retains the power to modify or extend the time frame to ensure the proper execution and performance of the award, especially when it is in the interest of justice and fairness (!) .
In summary, the Court which has jurisdiction over the case and has issued the award has the power to extend the time period for compliance or performance, provided it considers the circumstances of the case and the needs of justice (!) (!) .
Judgment
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Leave granted.
2. The above appeal is directed against the final order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 27.8.2003 in CRP No. 1136/2003 allowing the Revision Petition filed by the Respondent herein.
3. The Appellant and the Respondent are brothers, Respondent being the elder. They have another brother who is well employed in the United States. The three brothers partitioned the property left behind by their father by metes and bounds. The Respondent was running a theatre. A part of the theatre fell in the property allotted to the appellant. Since Respondent did not vacate and give vacant possession to the Appellant, he was constrained to file a suit for a mandatory injunction for removal of the building and to surrender vacant possession. The Appellant also prayed for a decree for recovery of possession.
4. The appellant’s suit was decreed as prayed for. When the matter was pending in appeal at the instance of the Respondent in the District Court, the dispute was referred to the Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act for resolution of the dispute. The matter was settled in the Lok Adalat. The award of the Lok Adalat dated 5.10.1999 provided for sale to the Appellant or his nominee of the property scheduled to the award after a period of one year and within a period of two years on payment of a sum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs to the Respondent and on default of the Respondent to execute the document, the appellant could get it executed through court. On the other hand, in case of default on the part of the appellant, he had to give up his aforesaid right and instead be entitled to be paid to Rs. 3.5 lakhs by the Respondent.
5. The Respondent did not execute the sale deed within the time fixed despite repeated requests by the Appellant. The Appellant, therefore, sent a lawyer’s notice on 3.10.2001 to the Respondent calling upon him to execute the sale deed. Respondent did not receive the notice and the notice was returned unserved to the Appellant. The Appellant thereafter sent a telegram on 26.10.2001 requiring the Respondent to execute the sale deed and also sent him a copy of his earlier notice dated 3.10.2001 by certificate of posting. There was no response from the Respondent. The Appellant was, therefore, constrained to move for execution of the award by filing petition in the Trial Court, which was opposed on various grounds. The Subordinate Judge overruled all the objections and the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs within three days i.e., on or before 8.4.2003. The Appellant, however, deposited the amount one day earlier on 7.4.2003 the next working day. But, the High Court allowed the Revision filed by the Respondent and dismissed the execution petition on grounds, which according to the Appellant, are irrelevant and incorrect. Hence, the Appellant preferred the above special leave petition.
6. We have heard Mr. TLV Iyer, learned senior counsel for the Appellant and Mr. M.P. Vinod, learned counsel for the Respondent and perused the pleadings, orders passed by the courts below and the Annexures filed along with the appeal.
7. Mr. TLV Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. in entering into the investigation of questions of fact and appraisal of evidence in setting aside the well considered order of the Executing Court. He further submitted that the High Court is in error in holding that the Appellant did not have the funds with him to have the deed of sale executed in his favour and the reasoning and the premises on which such a conclusion is based are faulty and fallacious besides being beyond jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the Respondent had not performed his obligations by evincing his willingness to execute the sale deed on receipt of the amount of Rs. 9.5 lakhs. Concluding his arguments, Mr. Iyer submitted that the view taken by
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
