IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13890 of 2007(C)
1. CHELLAMMA PURUSHOTHAMAN,
... Petitioner
2. VALSALA PARAMESWARAN, W/O.PARAMESWARAN,
Vs
1. SUMANGI PRABHAKARAN, W/O.PRABHAKARAN,
... Respondent
2. RAJAMMA VISWANATHAN, W/O.VISWANATHAN,
3. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ
For Respondent :SRI.MAURICE VINCENT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :04/10/2010
O R D E R
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