IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 22846 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, MANGALAPPALLIL HOUSE, PANDANADU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, CHENGANNUR. 2. VASUNDHATHI AMMA, RAKESH BHAVAN, MURIYAYIKKARA MURI, PANDANAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DIST. 3. JALAJAMMA CHANDRASEKHARAN, MANGALAPPILLIL, MURIYAYIKKARA MURI, PANDANAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DIST. 4. PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, MANGALAPPILLIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUM MURI, KAVUMBHAGOM P.O., THIRUVALLA. 5. SUBHADRAMMA, GEETHA BHAVANAM, MANDIRAM P.O., RANNI. 6. KANCHANAVALLI AMMA, C/O.PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, MANGALAPPALLIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUM MURI, KAVUMBHAGOM P.O., THIRUVALLA. WP(C).No. 22846 of 2009 :: 2 :: 7. CHANDRAMATHI AMMA, MANGALAPPALLIL HOUSE, MURIYAYIKKARA MURI, PANDANAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22846 of 2009 --------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 award passed by the 1st respondent, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Chengannur, on several grounds. It was contended that his rights are affected by Ext.P3. But he was not aware of the proceedings. He was not made a party to the proceedings before te Taluk Legal Services Committee, and consequently, the award is bad, contends the petitioner. He also seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to hear him also and then pass fresh orders thereon. 2. The 3rd respondent is the wife of the petitioner. Respondents 2 and 4 to 7 are the brother and sisters of the 3rd respondent. Respondents 2 to 7 and their mother obtained 53 cents of property from late Narayana Pillai, the father of respondents 2 to 7, as per document No.266/1975 of the Chengannur Sub Registry Office. Thereafter the sharers were separately in possession of the property. It is further contended that as per Ext.P1 sale W.P.(C)Nos.22846 of 2009 :: 2 :: deed dated 8.4.1994, the 7th respondent, one of the sharers, assigned her share to the petitioner and his wife, the 3rd respondent; that thereafter the petitioner and the 3rd respondent have been in joint ownership and possession over the property covered by Ext.P1; that the 3rd respondent had obtained other properties also. 3. The 2nd respondent, one of the sharers, approached the Taluk Legal Services Committee, the 1st respondent contending that there is a shortage in the extent of the property obtained by her and that therefore, the entire property, including the property covered by Ext.P1 will have to be measured. Her request was that the deficit in the property possessed by her must be distributed among all the sharers. Apparently, the complaint was settled amongst respondents 2 to 7 and an award Ext.P3 was passed by the Taluk Legal Services Committee, providing for the appointment of an advocate commissioner to measure the property and to see that the deficit, if any, suffered by one of the sharers be distributed among all the sharers. This, the petitioner W.P.(C)Nos.22846 of 2009 :: 3 :: contends, would result in diminution of the property which he had obtained along with his wife under Ext.P1 sale deed, taken from the 7th respondent, one of the sharers. Hence the writ petition challenging Ext.P3. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to Ext.P3. It may be remembered that the property mentioned in Ext.P3 would comprehend the property obtained by the petitioner and his wife under Ext.P1 also. The petitioner is not one of the persons, who had obtained the property from the father of respondents 2 to 7. He is an assignee of a sharer. The petitioner may, therefore, have a grievance regarding a subsequent settlement amongst the sharers of the property, which, if implemented, would result in a detriment to him. 5. But, I am of the view that the remedy of the petitioner qua Ext.P3 is not to challenge the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Ext.P3 is an award passed by the Taluk Legal Services Committee. It is an award of the Lok Adalat and therefore, its effect is provided for under Section 21 of the Legal Services W.P.(C)Nos.22846 of 2009 :: 4 :: Authorities Act, 1987. Section 21 reads as follows: “21. Award of Lok Adalat:- (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under Sub-Section (1) of Section 20, the court -fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870(7 of 1870).” 6. Therefore, an award of the Lok Adalath shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court. In other words, Ext.P3 will have the trappings of the decree of a Civil Court. A decree or award in the nature of Ext.P3, which is deemed to be a decree, can ordinarily be challenged by those persons who are parties to the same. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to Ext.P3 and therefore, he cannot be bound by Ext.P3 as such. But he has a right to defend the property in relation to which he claims title and which according him, is in his possession on the strength of Ext.P1 sale deed, if any action is taken by any person on the strength of Ext.P3. But any such action, which the petitioner may be entitled to take, would obviously be an action that he can take, if his title or W.P.(C)Nos.22846 of 2009 :: 5 :: possession is disturbed on the strength of a decree passed by a civil court in proceedings to which he is not a party. 7. But that does not make Ext.P3 illegal or otherwise liable to be interfered with by this court. It is up to the petitioner to pursue his remedies before the civil court, if a cause of action arises in that regard or the title or possession over the property, which he claims to have obtained under Ext.P1, is otherwise threatened. 8. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P3 or grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of, subject to the above observations. Sd/- (V.GIRI) Judge sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge