IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 13890 of 2007(C) ---------------------- OS.198/1999 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. CHELLAMMA PURUSHOTHAMAN, W/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, PALLATHUSSERY, KILIROOR KARA, THIRUVARPPU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. VALSALA PARAMESWARAN, W/O.PARAMESWARAN, NIKARTHIL, VALIYATHODUKARA, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF & 3RD DEFENDANT : -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUMANGI PRABHAKARAN, W/O.PRABHAKARAN, VELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENGALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. RAJAMMA VISWANATHAN, W/O.VISWANATHAN, VADAKKECHIRA, KANNADI, PULINKUNNU. 3. THE SECRETARY, LOK ADALAT, DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.N. MAURICE VINCENT SRI.J.RAVINDRANATHAN NAYAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 13890 of 2007(C) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF DECREE DATED 11.11.2006 IN O.S. NO. 198/99 OF THE LOK ADALAT, DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA (DISTRICT COURT ALAPPUZHA). EXT.P2 : COPY OF I.A. DATED 7.4.2007 FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF, ALAPPUZHA FOR REVIEWING THE DECREE. EXT.P3 : COPY OF I.A. DATED 7.4.2007 FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF, ALAPPUZHA TO SET ASIDE THE EXHIBITS-PARTE ORDER. EXT.P4 : COPY OF I.A. DATED 7.4.2007 FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF, ALAPPUZHA TO CONDONE THE DELAY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.13890 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 04th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T This Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P1, award of the Lok Adalath constituted by the District Legal Services Authority, Alappuzha. Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.198 of 1999 in the court of learned Munsiff, Alappuzha for partition of the suit property. Petitioners who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit remained ex parte. With respondent No.1-plaintiff and respondent No.2-defendant No.3 contesting the matter was referred to the Adalath for consideration where Ext.P1, award was passed on 11.11.2006 between respondent Nos.1 and 2. As per the compromise respondent No.1- plaintiff is to relinquish her right in the suit property in favour of respondent No.2-defendant No.3 for consideration stated therein. Grievance of petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 is that they are not parties to the compromise award and hence the said award cannot affect their right in the suit property. According to the learned counsel petitioners filed an application for review of the award before the learned Munsiff claiming that they have 1/4th share each in the suit property and since the award was passed without notice to them it is not binding on them. Learned Munsiff dismissed the application. It is thereon that petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P1, award. Learned counsel for petitioners has W.P(C) No.13890 of 2007 -: 2 :- placed reliance on the decision in Leela v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008 [1] KLT 705) where it is held that an award not signed by the parties is not binding on such parties and is non-est in the eye of law. 2. Respondent No.2 contends that the award does not in any way affect the right claimed by petitioners if they otherwise have any such right and that the settlement is only between respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is also contended that respondent No.2 is prepared to pay off the value of share if any due to the petitioners and settle the matter with them also. 3. Indisputably, petitioners are not parties to the compromise award (Ext.P1) and hence in the light of decision (supra) that award cannot bind petitioners or their right if any in the suit property. But on going through the award there is no reason why this Court should interfere with the same since it does not in any way affect the right (if any) claimed by petitioners in the suit property. It is seen from Ext.P1, award that the compromise is between respondent Nos.1 and 2 alone and concerning the share of petitioner No.1 in the suit property which between respondent Nos.1 and 2 was agreed to be relinquished in favour of respondent No.1 for consideration stated therein. In so far as the award does not in any way affect the right if any of petitioners in the suit property and since it only settled the dispute between respondent Nos.1 and 2 alone, there is no W.P(C) No.13890 of 2007 -: 3 :- reason why Ext.P1, award should be interfered. But I make it clear that the compromise between respondent Nos.1 and 2 will not in any way affect the right if any petitioners otherwise have in the suit property. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observation. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv