Lok Adalat Awards Cannot Be Recalled By Civil Courts; Remedy Lies Only Under Articles 226 Or 227 Constitution of India: Karnataka High Court
The Bench noted non-disclosure of prior registered sale of allotted property at time of Lok Adalat compromise constitutes active concealment amounting to fraud; decree so obtained is a nullity and laches alone cannot bar challenge.
Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Lok Adalat award cannot be challenged through a recall application before the Civil Court, clarifying that the only remedy available against such an award is to approach the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court ruled that the principle applicable to recall of Civil Court compromise decrees under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC cannot be extended to Lok Adalat awards.
The Bench further noted that non-disclosure of an earlier alienation and the pendency of litigation over the allotted property, while inducing the other party to sign a compromise, constitutes active concealment of material fact amounting to fraud under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil noted that the principles laid down in Navratan Lal Sharma v. Radha Mohan Sharma & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3720 did not apply to the present case and observed, “…The decree under challenge is not a compromise decree passed by a Civil Court but an award passed by a Lok Adalat. Although a Lok Adalat award is deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court for the purpose of enforceability, the remedies available against such an award are fundamentally different. While a compromise decree passed by a Civil Court may be questioned before the same Court by way of a recalling application, a Lok Adalat award can be challenged only before the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court…the ratio in Navratan Lal Sharma, which concerns the recall of a compromise decree passed by a Civil Court, cannot be extended to or relied upon in relation to a Lok Adalat award”.
“…by virtue of Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, no appeal lies against a Lok Adalat award and any challenge thereto can be made only by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India”, the Bench further observed.
Advocate K.N. Nitish appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Mohammed Tahir appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, a 79-year-old illiterate woman from Mandya, challenged the Lok Adalat decree by which a land was allotted to her in exchange for land allotted to the respondent-plaintiff.
The respondent had sought correction of survey numbers, and the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat on November 23, 2013. The petitioner subsequently discovered that the property allotted to her had already been sold by the respondent-plaintiff vide a registered sale deed dated February 06, 1992 in favour of one G.B. Jayaramu.
The legal heirs of G.B. Jayaramu had later executed an agreement of sale in favour of J. Annegowda, whose suit for specific performance was decreed on August 17, 2019. Neither the prior sale, nor the pendency of the suit regarding alleged impersonation, nor the first appeal and the regular second appeal arising therefrom, was disclosed to the petitioner at the time of the compromise. The petitioner came to know of the decree only upon receiving summons, filed by the respondent for injunction based on the very decree challenged here.
The Court, applying the ratio of the Supreme Court in Papayya Shastry and Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2007) 4 SCC 221, held that any judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court or the opposite party is a nullity and non est in the eye of law, and may be challenged at any time. It held that laches alone cannot non-suit a party where the decree challenged is void ab initio on account of fraud, particularly where the petitioner was completely unaware of the decree until the summons in O.S.No.299/2021 was served.
“…any judgment or decree obtained by fraud cannot be said to be a judgment in the eyes of law as 'fraud vitiates everything'. Therefore, in the present case as the compromise decree was obtained by fraudulent means the said compromise decree is null and void and does not hold any legal validity. It is to be noticed that the petitioner came to know about the compromise petition only after receiving the summons in O.S.No.299/2021 until then she was completely unaware of the said compromise decree. Therefore, since the said decree is void, laches alone cannot be a reason for nonsuit when there is a decree obtained by fraudulent means”, the Bench observed.
“…non-disclosure of the relevant fact and making the petitioner to believe and sign the compromise petition which was accepted by the Lok Adalat is a clear fraud on the face of it”, the Bench noted.
The Court accordingly set aside the award and decree dated November 23, 2013.
Cause Title: Sannamma v. Mohammad Shariff alias Ahmed Shariff (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:29269)
Appearances:
Petitioner: K.N. Nitish, K.V. Narasimhan, Advocates.
Respondent: Mohammed Tahir, Advocate.