High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-07-20The original petition is dismissed.

Divakaran v. State of Kerala and Jyothi

Case / Petition Number:OP(C) NO. 2069 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2022-07-20
Court Decision / Holding: The original petition is dismissed. Ext.P3 award is not found to be unlawful under the cited guidelines, and Ext.P5 execution petition is not maintainable. The earlier EPs were withdrawn, and there is no basis to interfere with the Lok Adalat award under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Disposition: The original petition is dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Divakaran

Respondents

State of Kerala
Jyothi W/o DeePu

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C. Dilip
• Anushka Vijayakumar

Counsels for Respondents

• B. Mohanlal
• P. S. Preetha
• K. A. Mini Kumari
• Aswin V. Nair
• Karthik J. Sekhar
• Abijith M.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This petition challenges the Lok Adalat award Ext.P3, dated 14.12.2019, passed in MC.7/2019 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the related execution proceedings (EP 17/2021). The petitioner, Divakaran, is contesting the compromise reached during DV proceedings wherein his wife agreed to transfer 64.74 acres to her son-in-law and he would transfer 36.42 acres to his son, conditioned on the son's settlement of bank liabilities and debt on a car, and on the son and Jyothi vacating the residence. The Lok Adalat’s award effectively implements a family-arrangement with transfers of land and occupancy arrangements. The petition argues Ext.P3 is unsustainable in law for violating the guidelines laid down by this Court in Rajagopala Rao G.K and another v. State Police Chief (2016) 3 KHC 917, and for failing to conform to Section 51 of the Indian Contract Act, as reciprocal promises are absent. It is argued that DV proceedings contemplate relief under Sec. 18-22 and that enforcement by execution in EP 17/2021 is inappropriate. The court, however, finds that Ext.P3 followed guidelines and that the terms are independent and self-working, not reciprocal. It notes no fraud or coercion, and declines interference under Article 227. The petition is dismissed; EP 17/2021 is not maintainable, and earlier EPs were withdrawn.

Provisions of Law Cited

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 18, 19, 22Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 51Constitution of India, Article 227

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Reciprocal promises under Section 51, Indian Contract Act, 1872 determining enforceability of compromises
Self-working, independent terms of compromise do not require reciprocal promises for enforcement
Interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only where there is fraud or other vitiating circumstances

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends Ext.P3 award is unsustainable as it violates the guidelines laid down by this Court and the terms are not reciprocal under Section 51 of the Indian Contract Act. The lack of a time-bound obligation and the DV Act's framework under Section 18-22 render the enforcement of Ext.P3 through EP 17/2021 improper. The petition further asserts there is no valid basis to enforce a land transfer order arising from a domestic-violence settlement outside the proper judicial process.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that Ext.P3 award was issued in accordance with the Lok Adalat guidelines and that the compromise terms are self-working and independent. They contend there is no fraud or coercion and that enforcement through EP is proper. The court should refrain from unwarranted interference under Article 227 as there is no vitiating circumstance warranting quashing the award.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajagopala Rao G.K and another v. State Police Chief	2016 (3) KHC 917	Positive	Court relied on the proposition that reciprocal terms under Section 51 are required for a compromise to be unenforceable; where terms are independent and self-working, enforcement may proceed, aligning with the present award.
Gopakumar v. Sunitha Gopakumar	2020 (3) KHC 147	Positive	Court cited the ratio distinguishing reciprocal versus independent terms of a compromise, supporting the view that non-reciprocal terms may be enforceable absent fraud.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Divakaran v. State of Kerala and Jyothi and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1944 OP(C) NO. 2069 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LOK ADALATH IN MC.7/2019 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOTHAMANGALAM** ## **PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1:** DIVAKARAN AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, H.NO.XI/407, CHERIYANOLIKKAL VEEDU, COLONY KARA, NERIAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, PIN - 686 693. BY ADVS. C.DILIP ANUSHKA VIJAYAKUMAR ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & PETITIONER:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2 JYOTHI W/O.DEEPU, H.NO.XI/407, CHERIYANOLIKKAL VEEDU, COLONY KARA, NERIAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, PIN - 686 693. BY ADVS. B.MOHANLAL P.S.PREETHA K.A.MINI KUMARI ASWIN V. NAIR KARTHIK J SEKHAR ABIJITH M. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OP(C) NO. 2069 OF 2021** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The original petition is filed, to set aside the Award dated 14.12.2019 passed by the Lok Adalath, Kothamangalam, under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and to declare that E.P.17/2021 (Ext.P5) filed before the Court of the Munsiff, Kothamangalam is not maintainable. 2. The petitioner's case, in a nutshell, relevant for the determination of the original petition is that, the 2[nd] respondent is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. She had filed M.C 7/2019 (Ext.P1) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kothamangalam, under the Protection of Women from Violence Act,2005, ( in short 'D.V. Act') against the petitioner, his wife, his two daughters and their husbands and the brother of his son- **OP(C) NO. 2069 OF 2021** **3** in-law. The petitioner and his son has filed Ext.P2 written objection to Ext.P1. During the pendency of the proceeding, the parties were referred to the Lok Adalath organised by the Kothamangalam Taluk Legal Services Committee. At the intervention of the Committee, the parties filed a compromise petition, wherein, the petitioner's wife agreed to transfer 64.74 Ares of land in favour of her son – the husband of the 2[nd] respondent, the petitioner agreed to transfer 36.42 Ares of land in favour of his son, on condition that his son would clear the liability with the Bank and to pay off the outstanding loan amount availed to purchase a car, and further the son and the 2[nd] respondent would vacate the residential building and handover possession to the petitioner. On the basis of the said compromise, the Lok Adalath passed Ext.P3 award. Ext.P3 award is unsustainable in law, as it is in violation of the guidelines laid down by this Court in **Rajagopala Rao G.K and another v. State Police** **OP(C) NO. 2069 OF 2021** **4** **Chief and others** [ 2016 (3) KHC 917]. 2.1. While referring the matter to the Lok Adalath, the terms and conditions of the compromise should always be in conformity with the subject matter of the litigation. As the proceeding was one filed under the D.V.Act, which contemplates execution under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ext.P3 award is unenforceable. Moreover, there is no time period stipulated in Ext.P3 award for fulfilling the conditions in the compromise. Hence Ext.P3 is unsustainable in law. Without looking into these aspects, the petitioner and his wife had filed E.P. No.8/2020, but, they later withdrew the same. Now the 2[nd] respondent and her husband have filed E.P. 17/2021, to execute the award. Ext.P5 is unsustainable in law. Hence the original petition. 3. Heard; Sri.C.Dilip, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government ## **OP(C) NO. 2069 OF 2021** **5** Pleader appearing for the 1[st] respondent and Sri.B.Mohanlal, the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent. 4. The point is whether there is any illegality in Ext.P3 award passed by the Lok Adakath and whether Ext.P5 execution petition is maintainable? 5. The 2[nd] respondent had filed M.C.7/2019 before the jurisdictional Magistrate invoking the provisions of the D.V.Act, and had sought for various reliefs, including monetary reliefs, as provided under Sections 18,19 and 22 of the D.V Act. Even though the petitioner and his wife had filed Ext.P2 written objection, all parties in Ext.P1 had appeared before the Lok Adalath and executed the compromise petition dated 14.12.2019. 6. I have carefully perused the terms of the **OP(C) NO. 2069 OF 2021** **6** compromise appended to Ext.P3 award. I do not find any reciprocal promises between the parties as contemplated under Section 51 of the Indian Contract Act, which impedes the parties from fulfilling their part of the compromise. The terms and conditions in the compromise petition are independent, distinct and self working. 7. In **Gopakumar v. Sunitha Gopakumar** [2020(3)KHC 147], this Court has categorically held that, only if the terms of the compromise are reciprocal, as provided under Section 51 of the Indian Contract Act, can an aggrieved person contend that the compromise is unenforceable. On the other hand, if the terms of the compromise are independent and self working with no time limit fixed, the parties will have to perform their part of the compromise. 8. The petitioner does not have a case that he was **7** ## **OP(C) NO. 2069 OF 2021** compelled or there were any other vitiating circumstances leading to the execution of the compromise petition. 9. It is settled, only if an award is vitiated by fraud, the same can be interfered by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I find that Ext.P3 award has been passed following the guidelines laid down by this Court in **Rajagopala Rao G.K and another v. State Police Chief** (supra). There is no circumstance made out in the original petition warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition fails and is hence dismissed. ma/20.7.2022 Sd/- **C.S.DIASJUDGE** **8** ## **OP(C) NO. 2069 OF 2021** The word “son” in 3[rd] sentence of para 2 of the judgment in page no.3 is replaced by the word “wife” and, the portion “and her husband have” is replaced by the word “has” in the 6[th] sentence in para 2.1 of page 4 of the judgment dated 20.07.2022 in OP(C) 2069/2021 as per order dated 23.07.2024 in IA 1/2024 in the OP(C) 2069/2021. sd/Joint Registrar **9** ## **OP(C) NO. 2069 OF 2021** ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2069/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 21/03/2019 FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, WHICH IS NUMBERED AS M.C.NO.7/2019 ON THE FILE OF JFCMC NO.II, KOTHAMANGALAM. Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF WRITTEN OBJECTION DATED 15/06/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE, RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN M.C.NO.7/2019 ON THE FILE OF JFCMC NO.II, KOTHAMANGALAM. Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF AWARD DATED 14/12/2019, PASSED BY THE LOK ADALAT HELD AT KOTHAMANGALAM ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN COMPROMISE. Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF E.P.NO.8/2020 DATED 02/03/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM. Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF E.P.NO.17/2021 DATED 04/10/2021, ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM. Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM IN E.P.NO.17/2021 DIRECTING PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON 12/11/2021.