Joseph George and Joji George v. T.A.Raju, Baby and Saji

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 7541 OF 2016** ## **PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:** - **1 JOSEPH GEORGE,AGED 80 YEARS,S/O.LATE JOSEPH, RESIDING AT AMMANATHU HOUSE,VAYYATTUPUZHA P.O., KUMARAMPEROOR VADAKKEKARA MURI, CHITTER - SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.** - **2 JOJI GEORGE,AGED 43 YEARS,S/O.JOSEPH GEORGE, NOW RESIDING AT 68, BANINGTON CRES BRAMPTON, ON, L7A 1G3, CANADA, FROM AMMANATHU HOUSE, VAYYATTUPUZHA P.O., KUMARAMPEROOR VADAKKEKARA MURI, CHITTER-SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT THROUGH P.A.HOLDER SOSAMMA, AGED 82 YEARS, W/O.LATE JOSEPH GEORGE, RESIDING AT AMMANATHU HOUSE, VAYYATTUPUZHA P.O., CHITTAR VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 663.** **(LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED WRIT PETITIONER IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.09.2020 IN I.A.03/2020.)** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SRI.SAMEER M NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS:** - **1 T.A.RAJU,AGED 53 YEARS,S/O.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT THEKKEKARA HOUSE,VAYYATTUPUZHA P.O., KUMARAMPEROOR, VADAKKEKARA MURI, CHITTERSEETHATHODU VILLAGE,RANNY TALUK,PATHANAMTHITA-689 645.** - **2 BABY,AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.MURTHI THOMAS,RESIDING AT MURUTHOMPATHALIL HOUSE, VAYYATTUPUZHA P.O., KUMARAMPEROOR VADAKKEKARA MURI, CHITTER - SEETHATHODU VILLAGE,RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA** - **3 SAJI,AGED 40 YEARS,S/O.GEORGE, RESIDING AT KUTTIYIL HOUSE,VAYATTUPUZHA P.O., KUMARAMPEROOR VADAKKEKARAMURI, CHITTAR - SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, RANNYTALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.** **BY ADVS. SRI.B.HARRYLAL SRI.C.R.REGHUNATHAN SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2021, THE** **COURT ON 10.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C) 7541/2016 2 ## Judgment Can a party to the award passed by the Lok Adalat challenge the award on the ground that he did not comprehend the true nature and consequence of the terms of the compromise forming part of the award? This is the question called for consideration of this Court in this writ petition. 2. The plaintiff in O.S. No.105/2012 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Ranny has preferred this writ petition challenging Ext.P7 award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'LSA Act'). The writ petitioner expired during the pendency of this proceedings and his legal representative is impleaded as per order dated 23.09.2020 in I.A. No.03 of 2020. 3. To state the essential facts, the writ petitioner (petitioner) was the plaintiff in O.S No.105/2012 and the defendants therein are the respondents herein. The petitioner instituted Ext.P1 suit seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents herein from trespassing into his property having an extent of 1 Acre 53.500 Cents lying in Survey No. 165/2 in Chittar-Seethathodu Village (plaint schedule property in the suit) and from cutting open a new way W.P(C) 7541/2016 3 through the same. 4. Later, one Susamma, the wife of the 2[nd] respondent, instituted O.S No.125/2012 (Ext.P2) claiming easement right of way by prescription through the properties of petitioner and 4 others having property on the western side of plaint schedule property in Ext.P1 suit. 5. Days later, one Mercy Raju, the wife of the 1[st] respondent, preferred O.S.No.151/2012 (Ext.P3) wherein the petitioner was arrayed as 1[st] defendant and P.K.Rajamma and Mr. R. Wilson, having property on the western side of the plaint schedule property as defendants 2 and 3, seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from further trespassing into the way allegedly used by the plaintiff in Ext.P3 and for a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendants 2 and 3 to remove the encroachments over the way and restore the same into its original state. 6. Exts.P2 and P3 suits were dismissed for default. Later, Ext.P3 suit was restored and ex-parte decree in favour of the petitioner in Ext.P1 suit was set-aside. 7. While so, Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 suits were referred to Lok Adalat by the Ranny Taluk Legal Services Committee under Section 20 (2) of the LSA Act. W.P(C) 7541/2016 4 8. In the Lok Adalat organised by the Taluk Legal Services Committee under Section 19 of the LSA Act on 12.12.2015, Ext.P7 award was passed in terms of the compromise filed by the parties. The operative portion of Ext. P7 award is extracted below:- “Both sides present. Matter discussed and settled. Compromise filed. Award passed as per the terms of compromise and compromise shall form part of award.” As per the compromise which forms part of Ext.P7 award, the petitioner is to allow the respondents to use a 2 meter wide way entirely through the plaint schedule property in Ext.P1 in the north-south direction along eastern side of the boundary retaining wall of Wilson, Sasthramannil and others. It is further stated therein that the said way is to be given in such a manner giving direct access to Vayyattupuzha-Kulangaravaley public road without causing damage to the rubble wall on the western side and to plaint schedule property on the eastern side. In consideration of providing way, it was agreed that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) will be given to the petitioner by the respondents. 9. Contending that the compromise agreement which forms part of Ext.P7 award is ab initio void and not a valid one in the eye of law, W.P(C) 7541/2016 5 the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to set aside Ext. P7 award and the compromise forming part of the same. According to the petitioner, he had not put his signature on the compromise agreement with full volition and free mind and completely understanding the true nature and consequence of the same. He, who was aged 80 years and laboring under Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension and Chronic Renal failure, appeared in the Adalat premises at 10 a.m on 12.12.2015 on intimation about the reference of the case to Lok Adalat. He had to wait until the evening for his turn and by that time, he was tired and it became incapable for him to comprehend the true nature and consequence of the transactions done in the Adalat. Though he was willing for amicably settling the issue, the manner and terms upon which Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 were actually compromised were not approved by him. He also states how the compromise would prejudicially affect his interests. Though the petitioner had put his signature in the compromise agreement, his mind did not follow his signature. He would not have signed the compromise which is part of Ext.P7 award if he could comprehend and understand the terms of the same, its nature and consequences. The petitioner further contends that he was not properly communicated and W.P(C) 7541/2016 6 instructed with respect to the terms of compromise by his counsel before signing the settlement and the Adalat also did not take the responsibility of ensuring the fact that the terms of the compromise were understood and comprehended by every person. 10. The respondents have filed counter affidavit resisting the averments in the writ petition. It is stated that the award was passed in the Adalat in the presence of the Hon'ble Judicial Officer, the Member, parties and their counsel after an exhaustive discussion of all factual and legal issues arising out of the cause of O.S. No.105/2012 and O.S. No.151/2012 on the files of Munsiff's Court, Ranni. The counsel for the petitioner in Munsiff Court, Ranny also put his signature in the compromise agreement and in the absence of any allegation of fraud or substantial injustice shocking the conscience of the Court, a settlement award cannot be challenged under law. It is stated that an award which was passed on consensus between the parties after due legal advice cannot be permitted to be set at naught at the instance of a party with vested interest. The contention of the petitioner that he was undergoing treatment and therefore could not comprehend the terms of the award is denied by the respondents stating that the petitioner is the Vice President of Bathel Marthoma Church, Vayyattupuzha for more W.P(C) 7541/2016 7 than a decade and is actively involved in all the activities of the church and is a member of the committee supervising construction of new church building. It is contended that the writ petition is the result of an after-thought by the petitioner, filed in an experimental manner. 11. The writ petition was admitted on 29.02.2016 and this Court had stayed all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 award. As stated, the writ petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition on 11.04.2018 and the legal representative was impleaded by setting aside abatement after condoning a delay of 711 days. A reply affidavit is filed to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents reiterating the averments in the writ petition. The writ petition was also amended as per order dated 08.03.2021 in I.A. No.5 of 2021 to incorporate a pleading 'Ext.P7 is not in accordance with law and that it is not sustainable on the said reason.' 12.Heard Sri. Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.Harrylal, the learned counsel for the respondents. 13. According to Sri. Manu, Ext.P7 award is not in accordance with law as the same has been made in violation of the provisions of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations, 2009', for short). Sri. Manu W.P(C) 7541/2016 8 refers to Regulation 17 (2) thereof and contends that the members of the Lok Adalat have not counter signed the compromise annexed to the award and the counsel for the petitioner has not signed the award and therefore, the award is not in accordance with the Regulations, 2009. The counsel also submits that the members of the Lok Adalat did not ensure that the petitioner had affixed his signature only after fully understanding the terms of settlement arrived at and recorded, as mandated under Regulation 17 (5). He also contends that since the settlement was reached outside the Lok Adalat, Ext.P7 award incorporating the settlement is not in accordance with Regulation 17 (6). Finally, it is contended that the award was passed by the Lok Adalat on 12.12.2015 on the basis of a settlement dated 08.12.2015 and filed before the Munsiff Court on 14.12.2015 and as such, there was no settlement arrived at on 12.12.2015 in the Adalat. 14. Sri.Harrylal, on the other hand, would contend that the compromise which forms part of Ext.P7 award was drafted by the petitioner's counsel in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and was signed by the parties to the suit and their counsel(s) on 08.12.2015 and the compromise was discussed in the Adalat in the presence of the petitioner and the respondents as contemplated under W.P(C) 7541/2016 9 Regulation 13 (3) and Ext.P7 award was passed wherein the compromise formed part of the award. The compromise petition was filed by the petitioner's counsel before the Court on 14.12.2015. He submits that the present writ petition is only an after-thought to wriggle out of the compromise. He further submits that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands disclosing all facts and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **K.D. Sharma** _**v**_ **. Steel Authority of India Limited and others** [(2008) 12 SCC 481] wherein the Court has deprecated such conduct. 15. Since the date of filing the compromise petition before the Munsiff Court was not clear from the copy of the compromise petition produced in the writ petition as part of Ext.P7, this Court, by order dated 20.09.2021, called for a report from the Secretary, Taluk Legal Services Committee, Ranny regarding the date of filing the compromise petition (I.A. No.2052/2015 in O.S. No. 105/2012). The Secretary, Taluk Legal Services Committee has reported that I.A. No.2052/2015 in O.S. No.105/2012 was filed by the plaintiff (writ petitioner) on 14.12.2015. 16. Since the contentions of Sri. Manu are mainly based on Regulations 17 (2), (5) and (6) of the Regulations, 2009, it is apposite to extract hereunder the relevant portions of Regulation 17: W.P(C) 7541/2016 10 “17. Award. – (1) Drawing up of the award is merely an administrative act by incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties under the guidance and assistance from Lok Adalat. (2) When both parties sign or affix their thumb impression and the members of the Lok Adalat countersign it, it becomes an award. (see a specimen at Appendix-I) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be categorical and lucid and shall be written in regional language used in the local courts or in English. It shall also contain particulars of the case viz., case number, name of court and names of parties, date of receipt, register number assigned to the case in the permanent Register (maintained as provided under Regulation–20) and date of settlement. Wherever the parties are represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the settlement or award before the members of the Lok Adalat affix their signature. (3) In cases referred to Lok Adalat from a court, it shall be mentioned in the award that the plaintiff or petitioner is entitled to refund of the court fees remitted. (4) Where the parties are not accompanied or represented by counsel, the members of the Lok Adalat shall also verify the identity of parties, before recording the settlement. W.P(C) 7541/2016 11 (5) Member of the Lok Adalat shall ensure that the parties affix their signatures only after fully understanding the terms of settlement arrived at and recorded. The members of the Lok Adalat shall also satisfy themselves about the following before affixing their signatures: - (a) that the terms of settlement are not unreasonable or illegal or one-sided; and - (b) that the parties have entered into the settlement voluntarily and not on account of any threat, coercion or undue influence. (6) Members of the Lok Adalat should affix their signatures only in settlement reached before them and should avoid affixing signatures to settlement reached by the parties outside the Lok Adalat with the assistance of some third parties, to ensure that the Lok Adalats are not used by unscrupulous parties to commit fraud, forgery, etc. xxx “ As regards the first contention of Sri.Manu that the members of the Lok Adalat have not countersigned the settlement and the counsel for the petitioner has not signed the award, it is to be noted that Regulation 17(1) provides that drawing up of the award is merely an administrative act by incorporating the terms of settlement or W.P(C) 7541/2016 12 compromise agreed by parties. Regulation 17(2) provides that, once an award is thus prepared (drawn up), it becomes an award only when both parties sign or affix their thumb impression and the members of the Lok Adalat countersign 'it' (the award). The first part of Regulation 17 (2) requires both parties to sign the award and the members of the Lok Adalat to countersign the award and it becomes an award only on fulfilling that requirement. It is not in dispute that, in Ext.P7 award, both parties have signed and the members of the Lok Adalat have countersigned it. When it is stated in the award that the compromise shall form part of the award and the members of the Lok Adalat have countersigned the award, it is not necessary that the members of the Lok Adalat have to countersign the compromise agreement annexed to the award, as the Regulation 17(2) mandates the members of the Lok Adalat to countersign the award and not the settlement. 17. Regulation 17(2) further stipulates that, wherever the parties are represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the settlement or the award. The terms of settlement or compromise agreed between the parties can either be reduced into writing in the award itself or if there is separate compromise agreement or settlement, it can be incorporated in the award by annexing and it W.P(C) 7541/2016 13 becomes part of the award. When the award provides that the settlement or compromise agreed by parties forms part of the award, such settlement or compromise annexed to the award shall be duly signed by the counsel, if the parties are represented by counsel. Where the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties are reduced into writing in the award itself, the award shall be signed by the counsel, if the parties are represented by counsel. Regulation 17 (2) stipulates the signature of the counsel in the settlement or in the award, as the case may be. The said Regulation insists the members of the Lok Adalat to affix their signature on the award, after ensuring that the counsel for the parties (if any) had also signed the settlement or the award, as the case may be. Admittedly, the counsel for the petitioner has affixed his signature on the compromise petition annexed to Ext.P7 award and forming part of the award. Regulation 17 (2) does not stipulate the counsel to sign both the settlement and the award. Therefore, the contention of Sri. Manu based on Regulation 17(2) cannot be accepted. 18. As regards the contention as to the violation of Regulation 17 (5), I shall deal with the same later. 19. Another contention of Sri.Manu is that, since the settlement W.P(C) 7541/2016 14 was reached outside the Lok Adalat, Ext. P7 award incorporating the settlement is not in accordance with Regulation 17 (6). The compromise which has been made part of Ext.P7 award is a compromise petition prepared in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and signed by both parties to the suit and their counsel(s) on 08.12.2015. On 12.12.2015, the Adalat passed the award as per the terms of this compromise. Regulation 17 (6) provides that the members of the Lok Adalat should affix their signatures only in settlement reached before them and should avoid affixing signatures to settlement reached by the parties outside the Lok Adalat with the assistance of some third parties, to ensure that the Lok Adalats are not used by unscrupulous parties to commit fraud, forgery, etc. In Ext.P7 award, it is stated that the matter is discussed and settled. It is further stated that compromise is filed and the award is passed as per the terms of the compromise and the compromise shall form part of the award. The settlement is reached before the members of the Lok Adalat. The parties have settled the matter before the Lok Adalat in terms of the compromise petition which they have signed on 08.12.2015 and filed before the Lok Adalat on 12.12.2015. The said compromise was annexed to the award drawn up by the Lok Adalat and W.P(C) 7541/2016 15 both parties have signed the award and the members of the Lok Adalat have countersigned. The compromise formed part of the award and the proceedings have terminated and the award has become final and binding on all parties to the dispute. The settlement was reached before the Lok Adalat and not outside the Lok Adalat. Therefore, the contention of Sri. Manu based on Regulation 17(6) of Regulation, 2009 cannot sustain. Sri. Manu has relied on the decision of this Court in **Sunanda and others** _**v**_ **. Sundaran** [2020 (3) KHC : 2020 (3) KLJ 717] to contend that Lok Adalat has no power to act upon a settlement reached outside the Lok Adalat. In the said decision, a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC was filed before the Sub Court, Trissur in a suit. The suit was referred to Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat treated the said petition as a compromise petition and passed the award. The defendants in the suit did not sign the award. This Court in paragraph 12 of the said decision held: “12. It is clear from the above provisions that the settlement or agreement must be arrived at by the parties before the members of the Adalat. This would show that the parties must be present before the Lok Adalat in person. The parties must also sign the Award after understanding the terms of settlement. The members of the Lok Adalat must ensure that W.P(C) 7541/2016 16 the settlement was arrived at by the parties voluntarily and not on account of any threat, coercion or undue influence. For the said purpose also, the presence of the parties before the Lok Adalat is necessary. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that if an Award is passed in the absence of the parties, the members of the Lok Adalat do not get any opportunity to ascertain from the parties as to whether they have signed the Award / settlement after understanding the terms of the Award / settlement or not and also as to whether they have entered into the settlement voluntarily or not and hence, the Award passed in the absence of the parties cannot be said to be legal and correct.” That was a case where the award was drawn up by the Lok Adalat on the basis of a compromise petition filed before the Court. The award was not signed by one of the parties, namely, the defendants in the suit. It was in the said circumstance that this Court held that award passed on the basis of a settlement reached outside the Lok Adalat was not in accordance with law. In the case on hand, both parties were present before Lok Adalat and the matter was discussed and settled and the compromise filed was incorporated in the award and both W.P(C) 7541/2016 17 parties have signed the award. Therefore, the decision in **Sunanda and others** (supra) is distinguishable on facts. 20. According to Sri. Manu, the award was passed by Lok Adalat on 12.12.2015 on the basis of a compromise petition filed before the Munsiff Court on 14.12.2015 and as such, there was no settlement arrived at on 12.12.2015 in the Adalat. As per the report of the Secretary, Taluk Legal Services Committee, the compromise petition I.A. No.2052/2015 in O.S. No. 105/2012 was filed by the plaintiff (petitioner) before the Munsiff Court, Ranny on 14.12.2015. It is to be noted that, as per Section 21 (2) of the LSA Act read with Regulation 17(2) of Regulations, 2009, when the parties have signed the award and the members of the Lok Adalat have countersigned the same, the award of Lok Adalat becomes final. The dispute between the parties comes to an end for all purposes consequent upon passing of the award. The proceedings have been terminated with the passing of the award on 12.12.2015.The filing of compromise petition before the Court has no relevance and is not necessary. The compromise is already incorporated in the award and forms part of the award. Therefore, the said contention is also rejected. 21. Now, I shall deal with the contention of Sri. Manu regarding W.P(C) 7541/2016 18 the violation of Regulation 17 (5). According to Sri. Manu, the members of the Lok Adalat did not ensure that the petitioner affixed his signature fully understanding the terms of settlement arrived at and recorded, as mandated under Regulation 17 (5). The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he had not put his signature on the compromise agreement with full volition and free mind and completely understanding the true nature and consequence of the same. Since he was on medication and had to wait at the Adalat for long, he was tired and became incapable to comprehend the true nature and consequence of the transactions done in the Adalat. It is to be noted that the parties had come to a consensus even prior to the Lok Adalat organised on 12.12.2015. A compromise duly signed by parties was already arrived at on 08.12.2015. The matter was called before the Lok Adalat 4 days thereafter. There was sufficient time to think over and take a decision whether to stick to the compromise or not. As seen from Ext.P7 award, both parties were present and the matter was discussed and settled at the Lok Adalat and parties agreed to convert the compromise into award. It cannot, therefore, be said that he succumbed to the pressure of the transactions happened in the Adalat and agreed for a settlement. Both parties have affixed their signature W.P(C) 7541/2016 19 in the award and the members of Lok Adalat have countersigned the award. When the dispute is settled by the parties under the guidance and assistance of the Lok Adalat, it is not open to any of the parties to the award to contend later that he did not comprehend the true nature and consequence of the compromise. The petitioner cannot be allowed to resile from the compromise which has formed part of the award of the Lok Adalat which is final and binding on the parties. Section 21(2) of the LSA Act provides that the award of Lok Adalat is final and binding on all the parties. Such finality cannot be permitted to be set at naught on the bald statement of the petitioner that he did not comprehend the true nature and consequence of the compromise. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in **Thomas P.O** _**v**_ **. Kollam Taluk Legal Services Committee and another** [2017 (3) KLT 212: 2017 KHC 583: 2017 (3) KLJ 549] to contend that in case of detrimental compromise, awards of the Lok Adalats can be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. Compromise involves mutual adjustments and concessions to settle differences amicably. After signing the award, the parties cannot, later, reprobate stating that the award is detrimental to them. The petitioner is not having a case that the award is vitiated by misrepresentation and fraud or is opposed to W.P(C) 7541/2016 20 public policy. Therefore, the decision in **Thomas P.O** (supra) cannot be of any help to the petitioner in the facts of this case. 22. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to give effect to the State's obligation to provide free legal aid to the poor and weaker sections of the society which is one of the directive principles of State policy enshrined in Article 39A of the Constitution of India. In **State of Punjab and another** _**v**_ **. Jalour Singh and others** [(2008) 2 SCC 660: 2008 (2) KHC 89: 2008 (2) KLT 235], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to the provisions of the LSA Act, held in paragraphs 8 and 12 as follows:- “8. It is evident from the said provisions that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to conciliation. A Lok Adalat determines a reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties at its instance, and put its seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement. When the Lok Adalat is not able to arrive at a settlement or compromise, no award is made and the case record is returned to the Court from which the reference was received, for disposal in accordance with law. No Lok Adalat has the power to "hear" parties to adjudicate cases as a Court does. It discusses the subject matter with the parties and persuades them to arrive at a just settlement. In their conciliatory role, the Lok Adalats are guided by principles of justice, equity, fair play. When the LSA Act refers to 'determination' by the Lok Adalat and 'award' by the Lok Adalat, the said Act does not contemplate nor require W.P(C) 7541/2016 21 an adjudicatory judicial determination, but a non adjudicatory determination based on a compromise or settlement, arrived at by the parties, with guidance and assistance from the Lok Adalat. The 'award' of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision making process. The making of the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat. xxx 12. It is true that where an award is made by Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a Civil Court, and no appeal lies against it to any Court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Art.226 and / or Art.227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds....” Referring to paragraph 12 of the decision in **State of Punjab and another** (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in **Bhargavi Construction and another** _**v**_ **. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others** [(2008) 13 SCC 480], held as follows: “27. In our considered view, the aforesaid law laid down by this Court is binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Art.141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no uncertain W.P(C) 7541/2016 22 terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Art.226 and / or Art.227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds.” There is a finality attached to the awards of the Lok Adalat under Section 21 (2) of the LSA Act. However, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited decisions, the challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done by filing writ petition under Art.226 and/or Art.227 of the Constitution of India, on very limited grounds. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are not sufficient to exercise the power of judicial review of this Court to interfere with Ext.P7 award of the Lok Adalat. 23. Sri. Manu has relied on the decision in **Sunil K.S.** _**v**_ **. Sherly and another** [2016(4) KHC 397: 2016 (4) KLT 988: 2016 (3) KLJ 628: ILR 2016 (3) Ker.915] to contend that the Lok Adalat has a duty to ensure that its proceedings are transparent and not vitiated by procedural illegalities or irregularities. I have already found that Ext.P7 award is not invalid on any of the grounds raised by the petitioner. It is true that since the award made by the Lok Adalat is final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, the members of the Lok Adalat owe an W.P(C) 7541/2016 23 obligation to ensure that the parties fully understand the terms of settlement. The presence of the parties at the Adalat are insisted since the members get opportunity to ascertain whether the parties have fully understood the terms of the award/settlement and they have entered into the settlement voluntarily and not on account of any threat, coercion or undue influence. Ext.P7 award was passed in the presence of both the parties. If the contention of any of the parties to the award that he did not comprehend the terms of the award is approved as such, and the award is interfered with, that would destroy the finality attached to the award and would defeat the very aim and objective of the LSA Act with which it has been enacted. It will be possible for any party to the award to raise such objection against the award on an after-thought and there will not be any finality to the award. Except for the mere _ipse dixit_ statement of the petitioner that he could not comprehend the nature and consequence of the settlement and that the Lok Adalat failed to ensure that the petitioner understood the terms of the settlement, there are no materials to support the said statement. There are no grounds to interfere with Ext.P7 award exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As rightly contended by Sri. W.P(C) 7541/2016 24 Harrylal, the writ petition is the result of an after-thought by the petitioner to wriggle out of the award, which cannot be countenanced. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** W.P(C) 7541/2016 25 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7541/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **EXT.P-1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.105/2012 ON THE FILES OF LEARNED MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI.** **EXT.P-2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.125 OF 2012 ON THE FILES OF LEARNED MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI.** **EXT.P-3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 151/2012 ON THE FILES OF LEARNED MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI.** **EXT.P-4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER REPORT DATED 16.8.2012 IN THE EXT.P1 SUIT.** **EXT.P-5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE IST ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER REPORT DATED 31.3.2012 FILED IN EXT.P1 SUIT.** **EXT.P-6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.ALEXANDER KOSHY, CENTURY HOSPITAL, CHENGANNUR DATED 8.02.16** **EXT.P-7: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 12.12.2015 ON LOK ADALAT.** **EXT.P-8: THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN IN OS 105/2012 ON THE FILES OF LEARNED MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI.** **EXT.P-9: THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY, VAYYATTUPUZHA - KULANGARAVALEY PUBLIC ROAD.** spc/