Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17789 of 2009 ====================================================== Sheela Devi W/O Dina Nath Prasad, D/O Late Braj Kishore Prasad Sahu R/O Vill- Ahiyapur, P.O. Ahiyapur, Via Kannul, P.S. Sahebganj, Distt. Muzaffarpur, At Present Seela Sadan, Saraswati Nagar, Baria, P.O. M.I.T., P.S. Ahiyapur, Distt. Muzaffarpur Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Yadunandan Prasad S/O Late Brij Kishore Prasad Sahu R/O Chauhatta, P.O. Hajipur, P.S. Hajipur Town, Distt. Vaishali 3. Shashi Nandan Prasad S/O Yadunandan Prasad R/O Chauhatta, P.O. Hajipur, P.S. Hajipur Town, Distt. Vaishali 4. Ravi Kumar S/O Yadunandan Prasad R/O Chauhatta, P.O. Hajipur, P.S. Hajipur Town, Distt. Vaishali 5. Chandrashekhar Prasad S/O Yadunandan Prasad R/O Chauhatta, P.O. Hajipur, P.S. Hajipur Town, Distt. Vaishali 6. Smt. Radha Devi W/O Yadunandan Prasad R/O Chauhatta, P.O. Hajipur, P.S. Hajipur Town, Distt. Vaishali .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi Mr. Sangeeta Sharma For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc5) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER *************** 11. 30/10/2013 Petitioner happens to be the own sister of Respondent No. 2, who alleges fraud, having been played by the private-respondents to grab her share of the property of her father late Braj Kishore Prasad Sahu, who died on 20th of January, 2008. At the time of the death of her father, besides the brother, even the mother of the petitioner namely, Ramrati Devi was alive. However, on her death on 22nd of January, 2009, her 1/3 share is also to devolve between the present petitioner
Facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.17789 of 2009 (11) dt.30-10-2013 2/6 and Respondent No. 2. But obviously, with the object of grabbing the entire property, her own brother has played fraud by taking recourse to Lok Adalat by filing a fraud and fraudulent compromise petition and obtained an award against her interest. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 12.05.2008, a partition suit was filed in the Permanent Lok Adalat, Vaishali at Hajipur by the Respondent No. 2 and mother, namely Ramrati Devi. The three sons of Respondent No. 2 and his wife were impleaded as Defendants 1 to 4 and petitioner was shown to be Defendant No. 5. Various misleading statements were made in the said partition suit with regard to right, title and interest of the property of Braj Kishore Prasad Sahu and Ramrati Devi, which are not of significance. The Lok Adalat registered the Partition Suit on 12.05.2008, admitted the plant for consideration on 23.05.2008 with a direction for issuance of summons to be filed on 30th of May, 2008. On 30th of May, a compromise petition with so called power on behalf of all the defendants, including the present petitioner was filed, on which an office report was called for. On 6th of June, 2008, the compromise was accepted and the award passed, showing that the present petitioner has relinquished all her share and has Patna High Court CWJC No.17789 of 2009 (11) dt.30-10-2013 3/6 nothing to do with the family property. When this petitioner learnt about the same, she enquired into the matter, inspected the records, and then she realized that her signature had been forged on the compromise- petition and the Vakalatnama to obtain the award. The whole game has been played only with the object of denying the benefit of the share of property belonging to the present petitioner as a daughter of Braj Kishore Prasad Sahu by the other family members, especially the brother, Respondent No. 2. 3. Counsel representing the petitioner submits that fraud vitiates everything, including the award passed by the Lok Adalat. It can never be said to be final and binding between the parties. In addition to that a look at Section 19 (i) to 19 (v) would show that the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain such application for partition suit, much less passing an award on the basis of a compromise which is basically a fraud played to obtain undue advantage through a forum which has been created for a bona-fide purpose. Such awards and decrees are vulnerable in nature and cannot be upheld, as has been held in various decisions, not only of this High Court but even Apex Court. 4. Attention of the Court has been drawn to Patna High Court CWJC No.17789 of 2009 (11) dt.30-10-2013 4/6 the ratio and decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India versus Suresh Kumar, reported in 2011 (7) SCC 491, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a Lok Adalat is not a regular court authorized to adjudicate the dispute between the parties on merits. In addition to that counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision rendered in the case of State of Punjab versus Jalour Singh, reported in 2008 (2) SCC 660, especially paragraph 12 and 13, as also a relatively recent decision, rendered in the case of Bar Council of India versus Union of India, reported in 2012 SCW 4430 and the ratio of the Apex Court in paragraph 33. 5. These are decisions, which are indicators to the position in law with regard to the maintainability of writs as well as the power of the courts to interfere with these kinds of fraudulent orders or awards, which are obtained from a Lok Adalat. 6. Learned counsel representing the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, however, relies on a decision, rendered in the case of Kanti Devi versus State of Bihar, reported in 2012 (2) PLJR 184.
Legal Reasoning
7. After having perused the original records of the Lok Adalat, the averments made in the writ application and the materials available from the same, Patna High Court CWJC No.17789 of 2009 (11) dt.30-10-2013 5/6 the Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the forum of Lok Adalat has been used by the own brother of the present petitioner to deny her share of the property, to which she is entitled to, by virtue of being the own sister as well as daughter of the family. Since in India a married daughter is not considered part and parcel of the household any more and the old feudal mind-set still works to ensure that a married daughter does not get any share of the ancestral property, therefore, the present innovation has been done by the private-respondents, which is also basically a kind of a fixed match, in the manner in which pre-litigative suit was filed and the parties shown therein. Obviously, the whole thing has been stage-managed by the private- respondents to deny the share of the property to the present petitioner and this Court will not permit a statutory body or a forum to be utilized for such fraudulent transactions or benefit, which has been obtained by the private-respondents. 8. At one point of time, when the matter was taken up the counsel for the private-respondents sought some adjournments to sort out the family dispute within the family. However, when the matter was taken up again, there was no talk about any kind of compromise, Patna High Court CWJC No.17789 of 2009 (11) dt.30-10-2013 6/6 having been worked out between the parties and therefore, the matter was heard on the merit. 9. Taking the totality of the facts and the manner in which the award has been obtained by the private-respondents and where there is serious disputes on behalf of the petitioner, about the authenticity of the so called signature on the Vakalatnama and the compromise, which form the basis for passing of the award, the Court would be inclined to interfere with the award by quashing it and allowing the parties to may be go for a regular forum, may be a civil court for settlement of their dispute. 10. An unfair advantage cannot be created in favour of the private-respondents where the whole transactions prima facie seems to be dubious and beyond jurisdiction. The writ application, therefore, stands allowed. The impugned award dated 06.06.2008, passed in Pre-Litigative Partition Suit No. 169 of 2008 by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Vaishali at Hajipur, contained in Annexure – 1 and 2 is hereby quashed. SKM/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)