IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 21464 of 2007 Between: 1 Smt. K. Lalitha, W/o. Late K. Shiva Reddy, R/o. H.No. 8-13, Temple, Alwal, Secunderabad. 2 Smt. B. Neerajakshi, W/o. B.G. Ravinder Reddy, R/o. H.No. 2-2-18/41/6, D.D. Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The LokAdalat, District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy, Rep by its Secretary, Rangareddy District Courts Complex, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. P. Shobha Rani, W/o. Ramakrishna Reddy, R/o. Pet Basheerabad Village, Quthubulapur Mandal, R.R. District. 3 Sri P. Vittal Reddy, S/o. Shanker Reddy, R/o. 3-56, R/o. Pet Basheerabad Village, Quthubulapur Mandal, R.R. District. 4 Smt. C. Uma Rani, W/o. A. Venkat Reddy, R/o. H.No. 4-1-584/2/7, Troop Bazar, St. No. 8, Hyderabad. 5 Sri P. Shankar Reddy, S/o. Late Lachanna Reddy, R/o. 4-2, Kompally, North NCL, Quthubullapur Mandal, R.R. District. 6 Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o. A. Venkat Reddy, R/o. 4-2, Kompally, North NCL, Quthubullapur Mandal, R.R. District. 7 Sri M. Mahaboob Reddy, S/o. Late Narayana Reddy, R/o. Allapur Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring award/compromise decree dated 30-8-2007 passed by the 1st Respondent in OS NO. 599 of1999 as illegal, arbitrary, collusive and fraudulent and consequently set aside the same and restrain the respondents 2 to 7 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the properties purchased by them under document No. 5006 of 2002 and 5007 of 2002 and documen No. 5008 of 2002 dt. 26-6-2002, registered with the oﬃce of Sub-Registrar, Medchal and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.S.RAMCHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Writ Petition No. 21464 of 2007 Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 6 and Sri K. Venkata Vara Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.7. The petitioners are aggrieved by the award dated 30.08.2007 of the 1st respondent, the Lok Adalat, Ranga Reddy District, recorded in O.S. No. 599 of 1999, under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, declaring the rights of respondents 2 to 7 herein, inter se, in the suit on the basis of a memorandum of understanding and compromise dated 30.08.2007. The 7th respondent herein, who was the third defendant in O.S. No.599 of 1999 relinquished his rights in the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiﬀ (2nd respondent herein) and the other defendants, who are respondents 2 to 6 herein, for a consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-, the receipt of which is acknowledged by the 7th respondent herein and so recorded in the award dated 30.08.2007. According to the petitioners, under three memoranda of agreements dated 26.06.2002 (entered into between the petitioners and the 7th respondent herein) the 7th respondent agreed to sell a total extent of 1212 Sq. yards, from the 7th respondent’s share of the property in Survey No.105/F, Kompally village, Qutbullahpur Mandal, R.R. District, covered by a title deed No.388198, Patta No.340, issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Qutbullahpur Mandal. Under the memoranda of agreements the petitioners are also granted irrevocable power of attorney, of the 7th respondent. The memoranda are all registered before the Sub-Registrar, Medchal, on 26.06.2002. The 7th respondent in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled in this writ petition in November 2007, while admitting that he was taken to the Sub-Registrar’s Oﬃce in a Van hired by K. Shiva Reddy (the husband of the 1st petitioner) and that the documents were registered, claims that he had executed the agreements of sale-cum-GPAs, but that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by misleading him that his signatures are required for taking legal steps for ﬁling motor accident claim petition before the competent authority. The second respondent herein ﬁled O.S. No. 599 of 1999 seeking partition of the suit schedule property, including an extent of Ac.1.1/2 guntas, situated in Survey No.105/F of Kompally village. In the suit, the petitioners sought to implead themselves as defendants 4 and 5 and for that purpose they ﬁled I.A. No. 793 of 2006. In the aﬃdavit accompanying I.A. No. 793 of 2006 (deposed to by the ﬁrst petitioner herein and on behalf of both the petitioners) it was pleaded that the third defendant in the suit (7th respondent herein) had sold a total extent of 1212 Sq. Yards, under agreements of sale-cum-GPAs, dated 26.06.2002, registered with the Sub-Registrar, Medchal, and that on coming to learn that the suit in O.S. No. 599 of 1999, ﬁled for partition is pending (on the basis of a legal notice received from the plaintiﬀ in the suit (2nd respondent herein)), and as they are the bona fide purchasers, without notice of the pendency of the suit, they be impleaded to participate in the proceedings. Respondents 2 to 7 herein, who are the plaintiﬀ and the defendants in the suit, resisted the application of the petitioners for coming on record as defendants in O.S. No. 599 of 1999. By an order dated 23.12.2006, the Court of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, rejected the application of the petitioners herein for impleadment observing that since they claim to have purchased under agreements of sale-cum-GPAs during the pendency of the suit and in view of the objection raised by the plaintiff (2nd respondent herein) “no rights of title” have passed in favour of the petitioners and since the transaction is also hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, the presence of the petitioners is neither necessary nor proper. It would appear from the averments on behalf of the petitioners, that against the order dated 23.12.2006 the petitioners ﬁled a revision before this Court, but did not pursue the same. What happens to that revision now, in the light of the decree of compromise recorded by the Lok Adalat on 30.08.2007, need not be determined in these proceedings. After the rejection of I.A. No. 793 of 2006, the parties to O.S. No. 599 of 1999 ﬁled a memorandum of compromise on 30.08.2007, whereunder inter alia, the third defendant therein (who is the 7th respondent herein) agreed to relinquish his undivided 1/4th share interest in the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiﬀ and defendants 2 and 4 to 6 on receipt of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as consideration for his undivided 1/4th share. Pursuant to the memorandum of compromise presented to the Court, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, Ranga Reddy District, under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, on presumptively a conjoint application of the plaintiﬀ and defendants. By the order dated 30.08.2007, an award was passed in terms of the compromise between the parties. Apprehending that since the 7th respondent herein (third defendant in O.S. No. 599 of 1999), who is the vendor of the property of an extent of 1212 Sq. Yards in Sruvey No.105/F in favour of the petitioners under three memoranda of agreements of sale-cum-GPAs, had relinquished his share of the property under the decree of compromise recorded by the Lok Adalat, Ranga Reddy District, and in consequence the petitioners entitlement to the property as is available in law, would be adversely impacted, this writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order dated 30.08.2007 of the Lok Adalat, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners contend that the 7th respondent herein had knowingly and volitionally executed the memoranda of agreements of sale-cum-irrevocable GPAs on receipt of valuable consideration in favour of the petitioners, wherein the 7th respondent herein had declared that he had full and marketable title to the property. Thereafter, without mentioning the alienation of share in such property to the petitioners, the 7th respondent agreed to relinquish his share, of 1/4th of the property on receipt of consideration from the plaintiﬀ and the other defendants in O.S. No.599 of 1999. The 7th respondent herein along with other respondents 2 to 6, who are parties to O.S. No. 599 of 1999, have conjointly procured a collusive award from the Lok Adalat, Ranga Reddy District, and therefore, the said award must be invalidated by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of judicial review, which is available over the award passed by the 1st respondent, a Tribunal amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court, is the premise for this writ petition On behalf of the respondents 2 to 6, apart from a contest on the merits of the petitioners claims to the property under the three agreements of sale-cum-GPAs, it is contended that since those memoranda of agreements of sale, even if true being subsequent to institution of O.S. No. 599 of 1999, are covered by the doctrine of lis pendens, and since the third defendant in the suit (7th respondent herein) had relinquished his title to the property and that part of the compromise was also reﬂected in the award dated 30.08.2007 in O.S. No. 599 of 1999, the petitioners have no subsisting and enforceable right to the property. The petitioners were disabled from canvassing the factual and legal positions available to them in law in O.S. No. 599 of 1999 at the instance of respondents 2 to 6 herein. This disability of the petitioners, brought about by the order dated 23.12.2006 of the Court of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, foreclosed the defences of the petitioners with respect to the property in respect of which they claim to have agreements of sale-cum-GPAs with the 7th respondent herein, dated 26.06.2002. Since the respondents 2 to 7 successfully disabled the petitioners from participating in the lis in O.S. No. 599 of 1999, no decision in O.S. No. 599 of 1999, either recorded by a Court of competent jurisdiction after an adversarial process nor by the ﬁrst respondent, the Lok Adalat, Ranga Reddy District, pursuant to the compromise between the parties to that suit, would bind the petitioners. The petitioners would be entitled to pursue such remedies as are available to them in respect of their claims to property under the three agreements of sale-cum-GPAs dated 26.06.2002, registered before the oﬃce of the Sub-Registrar, Medchal. Nothing in this judgment shall be construed as an expression by this Court on the merits of the petitioners claims or any defences that may be urged by the respondents 2 to 7 or others in resonance to such claims and in appropriate proceedings that may be instituted before any Forum in respect of the petitioners claim. Any observations recorded herein are only in the context of the conclusion that the award dated 30.08.2007 recorded by the Lok Adalat, Ranga Reddy District in O.S. No. 599 of 1999, per se would not eﬀect any rights of the petitioners, qua the memoranda of agreements of Sale-cum-GPAs, dated 26.06.2002. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J. ___________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J. Date: 01.09.2008 Nsr