TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsis, respondent No.1 was allotted the land Gat No. 365 and land Gat No. 368 whereas respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (plaintiffs in the said suit) were allotted the land Gat No. 353. Deceased Revaji Bhau Tambe was allotted the land Gat No. 379. It has also been stated in the said compromise pursis that share of deceased Revaji would go to the defendant No.3 (respondent No.6 herein). The said matter was placed before the Lok Adalat and accordingly head of the Loknyayalaya Panel, Parner i.e. learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parner accepted the said compromise and decreed the suit in terms of compromise pursis by order dated 30.06.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would not be out of place to mention that respondent No. 12 herein has also instituted the suit for various reliefs, including the partition and separate possession in respect of the same suit property against the members of joint family including the petitioners and the respondents herein. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 7 to 9 and 12 have share in the ancestral property, however, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to 6 in collusion with each other had suppresse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a very limited grounds. Learned counsel submits that admittedly the petitioner herein was not party to the said suit R.C.S. No. 374 of 2013 so also respondent Nos. 7 to 9 and 12. In view of the same, the question of challenging the said decree passed in Lok Adalat by way of petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not arise. 8. Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the respondents submits that even in the case of Bhargavi Constructions and another (supra), though the Supreme court has observed about the remedy available to the aggrieved person, by way of filing writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, however, next to the words aggrieved person the Supreme court has mentioned (respondents herein/plaintiffs). 9. Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in terms of provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. 10. I have also heard learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 to 8. 11. I have carefully considered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits." 15. In the case of Bhargavi Constructions and another vs Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Others, (supra) the Supreme court by referring the aforesaid para No.12 in the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Jalour Singh and others, in para No. 24 has made the following observations:- "24. 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 Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by this Court, we are of the opinion that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person (respondents herein/plaintiffs) was to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award dated 22.08.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. It was then for the writ Court to decide as to whether any ground was made out by the wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b Barku Palve and others in writ petition No. 10639 of 2018 decided on 28.03.2019 in para 12 of the judgment has made the following observations:- "12. It is true that a party aggrieved by the Lok Adalat award can approach the High Court if it discovers any fraud post the Lok Adalat award. It is equally true that the third party, which is not a litigant in a suit which has suffered a compromise decree, can also file a separate suit for seeking a declaration that such decree which affects the rights of the third party, would not be binding upon the said party as the said decree was delivered in the matter in which, such third party was never arrayed. It, therefore, appears that an option to either prefer a separate suit or file a writ petition in the High Court would be available to such third party. At times, the issue of limitation would crop up and the suit to be preferred by such third party might be barred, of course, subject to the date of the knowledge of such decree." 18. In the instant case, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 7 to 9 and 12 are the daughters of deceased Revaji. I have carefully gone through the pleadings of said R.C.S. No. 374 of 2013 wherein there is no....