{"id":81240,"date":"2005-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005"},"modified":"2017-11-10T22:45:14","modified_gmt":"2017-11-10T17:15:14","slug":"p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005","title":{"rendered":"P.T. Thomas vs Thomas Job on 4 August, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
P.T. Thomas vs Thomas Job on 4 August, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: . Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
Bench: Ruma Pal, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4677 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nP.T. THOMAS                                \t\t            \n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHOMAS JOB                             \t\t           \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/08\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nRUMA PAL & Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT
\n(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P (C) No..20179\/2003)<\/p>\n
Dr.AR. LAKSHMANAN,J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe above appeal is directed against the final order of the High Court
\nof Kerala at Ernakulam dated 27.8.2003 in CRP No. 1136\/2003 allowing the
\nRevision Petition filed by the Respondent herein.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Appellant and the Respondent are brothers, Respondent being the
\nelder.  They have another brother who is well employed in the United States.
\nThe three brothers partitioned the property left behind by their father by
\nmetes and bounds.  The Respondent was running a theatre.  A part of the
\ntheatre fell in the property allotted to the appellant.  Since Respondent did
\nnot vacate and give vacant possession to the Appellant, he was constrained
\nto file a suit for a mandatory injunction for removal of the building and to
\nsurrender vacant possession.  The Appellant also prayed for a decree for
\nrecovery of possession.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant’s suit was decreed as prayed for.   When the matter was
\npending in appeal at the instance of the Respondent in the District Court, the
\ndispute was referred to the Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services
\nAuthorities Act for resolution of the dispute.  The matter was settled in the
\nLok Adalat.  The award of the Lok Adalat dated 5.10.1999 provided for sale
\nto the Appellant or his nominee of the property scheduled to the award after
\na period of one year and within a period of two years on payment of a sum
\nof Rs. 9.5 lakhs to the Respondent and on default of the Respondent to
\nexecute the document, the appellant could get it executed through court.  On
\nthe other hand, in case of default on the part of the appellant, he had to give
\nup his aforesaid right and instead be entitled to be paid   to Rs. 3.5 lakhs by
\nthe Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Respondent did not execute the sale deed within the time fixed
\ndespite repeated requests by the Appellant.  The Appellant, therefore, sent a
\nlawyer’s notice on 3.10.2001 to the Respondent calling upon him to execute
\nthe sale deed.  Respondent did not receive the notice and the notice was
\nreturned unserved to the Appellant.  The Appellant thereafter sent a telegram
\non 26.10.2001 requiring the Respondent to execute the sale deed and also
\nsent him a copy of his earlier notice dated 3.10.2001 by certificate of
\nposting.  There was no response from the Respondent.  The Appellant was,
\ntherefore, constrained to move for execution of the award by filing petition
\nin the Trial Court, which was opposed on various grounds.  The Subordinate
\nJudge overruled all the objections and the appellant was directed to deposit a
\nsum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs within three days i.e., on or before 8.4.2003.  The
\nAppellant, however, deposited the amount one day earlier on 7.4.2003 the
\nnext working day.  But, the High Court allowed the Revision   filed by the
\nRespondent and dismissed the execution petition on grounds, which
\naccording to the Appellant, are irrelevant and incorrect.  Hence, the
\nAppellant preferred the above special leave petition.
\n\tWe have heard Mr. TLV Iyer, learned senior counsel for the
\nAppellant and Mr. M.P.Vinod, learned counsel for the Respondent and
\nperused the pleadings, orders passed by the courts below and the Annexures
\nfiled along with the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. TLV Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant
\nsubmitted that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section
\n115 C.P.C in entering into the investigation of questions of fact and
\nappraisal of evidence in setting aside the well considered order of the
\nExecuting Court.   He further submitted that the High Court is in error in
\nholding that the Appellant did not have the funds with him to have the deed
\nof sale executed in his favour and the reasoning and the premises on which
\nsuch a conclusion is based are faulty and fallacious besides being beyond
\njurisdiction.  It is further submitted that the Respondent had not performed
\nhis obligations by evincing his willingness to execute the sale deed on
\nreceipt of the amount of Rs. 9.5 lakhs.  Concluding his arguments, Mr Iyer
\nsubmitted that the view taken by the High Court would totally defeat the
\nobject and purposes of the Legal Services Authorities Act and render the
\ndecisions of the Lok Adalat meaningless.\n<\/p>\n
\tPer contra, Mr. Vinod, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted
\nthat the appellant has not paid the sum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs after one year from
\nthe date of the award, namely, 5.10.1999 and at any rate within two years
\ntherefrom.  It is further submitted that the appellant also did not deposit the
\namount before filing the execution petition as contemplated in the award.
\nEven when he was examined in court on 22.2.2003, he had not deposited the
\nsaid amount.  According to Mr. Vinod, the award of the Lok Adalat cannot
\nbe equated with a decree and it only incorporates an agreement between the
\nparties and that in case of any violation of the said agreement, or the terms
\nof the compromise recorded in the award, the parties lose their right to get
\nthe same executed and the compromise stands withdrawn.  It is further
\nargued that the Appellant admittedly had not produced any material to show
\nthat the Appellant had the resources to pay the said amount at any relevant
\npoint of time or that the said amount was ever offered to the respondent at
\nany point of time and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any relief in
\nthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is further submitted that there is no effective service of any notice
\non the Respondent before 5.10.1999 and the only endorsement is that the
\nRespondent was absent.  It is submitted that the Appellant never had the
\nmoney with him and the belated payment after the order of the executing
\ncourt will not improve the case of the Appellant to prove his readiness and
\nwillingness to deposit a sum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs as agreed upon by him, and on
\nthe date specified, on the basis on which the matter was compromised before
\nthe Lok Adalat and an award was passed.  Concluding his arguments,
\nlearned counsel submitted that there is no merit whatsoever in the grounds
\nraised in this appeal and therefore, the appeal, which is clearly without any
\nmerits, deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have carefully considered the rival submissions made by both the
\nlearned counsel.  We do not find any merit in the submissions made by
\nlearned counsel for the Respondent.  From the evidence and the documents
\nfiled, we see bona fides on the part of the appellant in giving effect to the
\ncompromise arrived at between parties in the Lok Adalat.  We also see
\nabsolute merits on the submissions made by learned senior counsel, Mr.
\nTLV Iyer.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is seen from the records that the Appellant was compelled to file the
\nsuit for recovery of possession of Plot No. 2 since the Respondent herein
\nrefused to comply with the terms of the compromise arrived at between the
\nparties.  The suit was decreed on 26.7.1990 and appeal was filed by the
\nJudgment Debtor  Respondent before the District Court and during the
\npendency of the appeal the matter was compromised between parties on
\n5.10.1999.  We have already extracted the terms of compromise in
\nparagraph supra.  It is thus clear that the decree holder Appellant has
\napproached the executing court on the ground that the Judgment debtor\/
\nRespondent  failed to execute the sale deed after receiving Rs. 9.5 lakhs
\nfrom the decree holder.  Therefore the Appellant prayed before the
\nExecuting Court that he should be permitted to deposit Rs. 9.5 lakhs in that
\ncourt and get the documents executed through court if the Judgment debtor
\nfailed to do so on issuance of notice for the purpose by the executing court.
\nThe respondent submitted that the compromise arrived at is a conditional
\none and Judgment debtor is liable to execute the sale deed in favour of the
\ndecree holder only if he remits the amount as agreed, and since decree
\nholder has failed to comply with the conditions the Judgment debtor is not
\nbound by the terms of the compromise.  On the other hand the
\nrespondent\/J.D. was ready and willing to deposit Rs.3.5 lakhs before the
\nexecuting court as per the terms of the compromise.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore the executing Court witnesses were examined on both sides
\nand Exhibit A1 to A8 and B1 were produced by the respective parties.  The
\nexecuting court, accepting the evidence of PW 1 came to the conclusion that
\nthe notice issued requiring the respondent to execute the document as
\nsubmitted in the award was not received by the Judgment debtor and it has
\nbeen returned unclaimed.  It is seen that notice was an attempt to be served
\non the Judgment debtor on 4.10.2001 and since he was absent, intimation
\nregarding the notice has been given and the above notice has been returned
\nas unclaimed on 19.10.2001.  The Appellant after return of the Exhibit A2
\nnotice immediately sent a telegram to the Judgment debtor on 26.1.2001.
\nThe receipt issued for the telegram and certified true copy of the telegram
\nwas marked as Exhibit A3 and A4.  The Original telegram was produced on
\nthe side of the Respondent and marked as an Exhibit.  By the telegram the
\nJudgment debtor was intimated that the notice sent by the decree holder
\nthrough his Advocate on 3.10.2001 was returned unclaimed and copy of that
\nnotice was being forwarded by certificate of posting and that he was always
\nready and willing to pay Rs. 9.5 lakhs and get the sale deed executed in
\nterms of the award.  The copy of the Exhibit A2 notice is marked as A5, the
\ncertificate of posting obtained for issuing the copy of notice along with the
\ncopy of the telegram is marked as Exhibit A6.  Thus, it is clearly seen that
\nthe appellant decree holder has expressed his readiness and willingness to
\ndeposit the amount as per the award and get the document executed.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is argued on the side of the Respondent that the Appellant has not
\nsufficient fund to fulfill the obligation as per the award and that the
\nAppellant had issued a notice and telegram so as to create some records in
\nhis favour that he is always willing and ready   to pay the amount as per the
\naward.  It is submitted that it is only due to the default of the Appellant the
\nexecution of the sale deed has not taken place and therefore, the Appellant is
\nnot entitled to any relief in this appeal.  The learned Subordinate Judge on a
\nconsideration of the entire evidence placed on record granted the Appellant
\nthree days time to deposit Rs. 9.5 lakhs before the said court upon which he
\ncould get the sale deed through court as stipulated in the award.  The
\nappellant as directed by the learned Subordinate Judge deposited the entire
\nsum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs in the sub-court on 7.4.2003 as could be seen from
\nAnnxure 6.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have also perused the order of the learned Single Judge of the
\nHigh Court in revision.  The learned Single Judge, in our view, has
\nmisunderstood the terms of the award.  The obligation was on the
\nRespondent to evince his willingness to execute the sale deed within two
\nyears and not vice-versa as assumed by the High Court.  There was already a
\ndecree of ejectment against the Respondent in the suit in the trial Court and
\nit was his appeal that was sought to be settled in the Lok Adalat.  The
\nsettlement was a concession in his favour giving a breathing time to vacate
\nand give vacant possession.  Therefore, the initiative had to come from the
\nRespondent after offering to execute the sale deed where upon it became
\nnecessary to comply with his obligations.  However, without taking any
\ninitiative the Respondent has adopted the delaying tactics by alleging that
\nthe appellant was not able to provide the requisite funds for purchase and
\nforgetting the facts that the Appellant’s brother is in USA and providing the
\nrequisite funds for purchase.  It was he, in fact, who had provided the
\namount which was deposited on 7.4.2003 and not on 8.4.2003 as assumed by
\nthe High Court.  It is, thus, seen that the Appellant has performed his
\nobligation. He had sent the notice on 3.10.2001 and it was 4.10.2001 well
\nbefore the expiry of time on 5.10.2001.  Though the notice was correctly
\naddressed and despite the intimation by the post office, the notice was not
\naccepted by the Respondent and was returned unserved.  In such
\ncircumstances, the presumption of law is that the notice has been served on
\nthe Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court, in our view, has also misinterpreted Section 27 of the
\nPost Office Act.  The requirement of Section has been complied with in this
\ncase.  The reasoning of the High Court on this issue is not correct and not in
\naccordance with factual position.  In the notice issued, the Postman has
\nmade the endorsement.  This presumption is correct in law.  He had given
\nnotice and intimation.  Nevertheless, the respondent did not receive the
\nnotice and it was returned unserved.  Therefore, in our view, there is no
\nobligation cast on the appellant to examine the Postman as assumed by the
\nHigh Court.  The presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act
\noperates apart from that under the Post Office Act.\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion, the award of the Lok Adalat is fictionally deemed to
\nbe decrees of Court and therefore the courts have all the powers in relation
\nthereto as it has in relation to a decree passed by itself.  This, in our opinion,
\nincludes the powers to extend time in appropriate cases.    In our opinion, the
\naward passed by the Lok Adalat is the decision of the court itself though
\narrived at by the simpler method of conciliation instead of the process of
\narguments in court.  The effect is the same.  In this connection, the High
\nCourt has failed to note that by the award what is put an end to is the appeal
\nin the District Court and thereby the litigations between brothers forever.
\nThe view taken by the High Court, in our view, will totally defeat the object
\nand purposes of the Legal Services Authorities Act and render the decision
\nof the Lok Adalat meaningless.\n<\/p>\n
Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 reads as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“21. AWARD OF LOK ADALAT.  2[(1)] Every award
\nof the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil
\nCourt or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court and
\nwhere a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok
\nAdalat in a case referred on it under sub-section (1) of Sec.20,
\nthe court fee paid in such cases shall be refunded; in the manner
\nprovided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870)<\/p>\n
       (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and
\nbinding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie
\nto any Court against the award.\n<\/p>\n
Section 22 reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“22. POWERS OF LOK ADALATS  – (1) The Lok
\nAdalat shall, for the purposes of holding any determination
\nunder this Act, have the same powers  as are vested in a Civil
\nCourt under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908),
\nwhile trying a suit in respect  of the following matters, namely :\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tthe summoning and enforcing the attendance  of any witness
\n              and examining him on oath;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tthe discovery and production of any document ;\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tthe reception of evidence on affidavits ;\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tthe requisitioning  of any public record or document or copy
\n      of such record or document from any Court or Office; and\n<\/p>\n
(e)\tsuch other matters as may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers contained
\nin sub-section (1), every Lok Adalat shall have the requisite
\npowers to specify its own procedure for the determination of
\nany dispute coming before it.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  All Proceedings before a Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be
\njudicial proceedings within the meaning of Secs. 193, 219 and
\n228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and every Lok
\nAdalat shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purpose of
\nSec. 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
\n1973 (2) of 1974).\n<\/p>\n
UNREPORTED JUDGEMENTS 2004 (2) VOL 37.”\n<\/p>\n
What is Lok Adalat? :\n<\/p>\n
\t“The “Lok Adalat” is an old form of adjudicating system
\nprevailed in ancient India and  it’s validity has not been taken
\naway even in the modern days too.  The word ‘Lok Adalat’
\nmeans ‘People Court’.  This system is based on Gandhian
\nPrinciples.  It is one of the components of ADR system.  As the
\nIndian Courts are over burdened with the backlog of cases and
\nthe regular Courts are to decide the cases involve a lengthy,
\nexpensive and tedious procedure.  The Court takes years
\ntogether to settle even petty cases.  Lok Adalat , therefore
\nprovides alternative resolution or devise for expedious and
\ninexpensive justice.\n<\/p>\n
In Lok Adalat proceedings there are no victors and
\nvanquished and, thus, no rancour.\n<\/p>\n
Experiment of ‘Lok Adalat’ as an alternate mode of
\ndispute settlement has come to be accepted in India, as a viable,
\neconomic, efficient and informal one.\n<\/p>\n
LOK ADALAT is another alternative to JUDICIAL
\nJUSTICE.  This is a recent strategy for delivering informal,
\ncheap and expeditious justice to the common man by way of
\nsettling disputes, which are pending in Courts and also those,
\nwhich have not yet reached Courts by negotiation, conciliation
\nand by adopting persuasive, common sense and human
\napproach to the problems of the disputants, with the assistance
\nof specially trained and experienced Members of a Team of
\nConciliators.”\n<\/p>\n
Benefits Under Lok Adalat:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThere is no Court fee and if  Court fee is already paid the
\namount will be refunded if the dispute is settled at Lok Adalat
\naccording to the rules.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe basic features of Lok Adalat are the procedural flexibility
\nand speedy trial of the disputes.  There is no strict application of
\nprocedural laws like Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act
\nwhile assessing the claim by Lok Adalat.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe parties to the dispute can directly interect with the Judge
\nthrough their Counsel which is not possible in regular Courts of
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe award by the Lok Adalat is binding on the parties and it
\nhas the status of a decree of a Civil Court and it is non-
\nappealable which does not causes the delay in the settlement of
\ndisputes finally.\n<\/p>\n
In view of above facilities provided by the ‘Act’ Lok Adalats are boon to the
\nlitigating public they can get their disputes settled fast and free of cost
\namicably.\n<\/p>\n
AWARD OF LOK DALAT  :-\n<\/p>\n
The Lok Adalat shall proceed and dispose the cases and arrive at a
\ncompromise or settlement by following the legal principles, equity and
\nnatural justice.  Ultimately the Lok Adalat passes an award, and every such
\naward shall be deemed to be a decree of Civil Court or as the case may be
\nwhich is final.\n<\/p>\n
AWARD OF LOK ADALAT SHALL BE FINAL :-\n<\/p>\n
     The Lok Adalat will passes the award with the consent of the
\nparties, therefore there is no need either to reconsider or review the matter
\nagain and again, as the award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be final.  Even
\nas under Section 96(3) of C.P.C. that “no appeal shall lie from a decree
\npassed by the Court with the consent of the parties”.  The award of the Lok
\nAdalat is an order by the Lok Adalat under the consent of the parties, and it
\nshall be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court, therefore an appeal shall
\nnot lie from the award of the Lok Adalat as under Section 96(3) C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
      \tIn Punjab National Bank vs. Lakshmichand Rah reported in AIR
\n2000 Madhya Pradesh 301, 304, the High Court held that  “The provisions
\nof the Act shall prevail in the matter of filing an appeal and an appeal would
\nnot lie under the provisions of Section 96 C.P.C. Lok Adalat is conducted
\nunder an independent enactment and once the award is made by Lok Adalat
\nthe right of appeal shall be governed by the provisions of the Legal Services
\nAuthorities Act when it has been specifically barred under Provisions of
\nSection 21(2), no appeal can be filed against the award under Sec.96 C.P.C.”
\nThe Court further stated that “It may incidentally be further seen that even
\nthe Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for an appeal under Section
\n96(3) against a consent decree.  The Code of Civil Procedure also intends
\nthat once a consent decree is passed by Civil Court finality is attached to it.
\nSuch finality cannot be permitted to be destroyed, particularly under the
\nLegal Services Authorities Act, as it would amount to defeat the very aim
\nand object of the Act with which it has been enacted, hence, we hold that the
\nappeal filed is not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that, in Board of
\nTrustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam vs. Presiding Officer,
\nPermanent, Lok Adalat-cum-Secretary, District Legal Services
\nAuthority, Visakhapatnam and another reported in 2000(5) ALT 577, ”
\nThe award is enforceable as a decree and it is final.  In all fours, the
\nendeavour is only to see that the disputes are narrowed down and make the
\nfinal settlement so that the parties are not again driven to further litigation or
\nany dispute.  Though the award of a Lok Adalat is not a result of a contest
\non merits just as a regular suit by a Court on a regular suit by a Court on a
\nregular trial, however, it is as equal and on par with a decree on compromise
\nand will have the same binding effect and conclusive just as the decree
\npassed on the compromises cannot be challenged in a regular appeal, the
\naward of the Lok Adalat being akin to the same, cannot be challenged by
\nany regular remedies available under law including invoking Article 226 of
\nthe Constitution  of India challenging the correctness of the award on any
\nground.  Judicial review cannot be invoked in such awards especially on the
\ngrounds as raised in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe award of Lok Adalat is final and permanent which is
\nequivalent to a decree executable, and the same is an ending to the litigation
\namong parties.\n<\/p>\n
In Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo vs. The State of Orissa, AIR 1956
\nSUPREME COURT 346, (CONSTITUTION BENCH) held as follows:
\n   A Judgment by consent or default is as effective an estoppel
\nbetween the parties as a judgment whereby the court exercises
\nits mind on a contested case.  (1895) 1 Ch.37 & 1929 AC 482,
\nRel. on;\n<\/p>\n
  In  ‘In re South American and Mexican Co., Ex. Parte Bank
\nof England’, (1895) 1 Ch 37 ), it has been held that a judgment
\nby consent or default is as effective an estoppel between the
\nparties as a judgment whereby the Court exercises its mind on a
\ncontested case.  Upholding the judgment of Vaughan
\nWilliams,J Lord Herschell said at page 50 :-\n<\/p>\n
   “The truth is, a judgment by consent is intended to put a stop
\nto litigation between the parties just as much as is a judgment
\nwhich results from the decision of the Court after the matter has
\nbeen fought out to the end.\n<\/p>\n
   And I think it would be very mischievous if one were not to
\ngive a fair and reasonable interpretation to such judgments, and
\nwere to allow questions that were really involved in the action
\nto be fought over again in a subsequent action.”\n<\/p>\n
 To the like effect are the following observations of the Judicial
\nCommittee in  ‘Kinch v. Walvott’, 1929 AC 482 at p.493 (D):-
\n  “First of all their Lordships are clear that in relation to this
\nplea of estoppel it is of no advantage to the appellant that the
\norder in the libel action which is said to raise it was a consent
\norder.  For such a purpose an order by consent , not discharged
\nby mutual agreement, and remaining unreduced , is as effective
\nas an order of the Court  made otherwise than by consent and
\nnot discharged on appeal.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe same principle has been followed by the High Courts in India in a
\nnumber of reported decisions.  Reference need only be made to the cases of
\n ‘ Secy. Of State v. Ateendranath Das’, 63 Cal 550 at p. 558 (E) ; – ‘
\nBhaishanker v. Moraji’, 36 Bom 283 (F) and  ‘ Raja Kumara Venkata
\nPerumal Raja Bahadur’, v. Thatha Ramasamy Chetty’, 35 Mad 75 (G).  In
\nthe Calcutta case after referring to the English decisions the High Court
\nobserved as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t“On this authority it becomes absolutely clear that the
\nconsent order is as effective as an order passed on contest, not
\nonly with reference to the conclusion arrived at in the
\nprevious suit but also with regard to every step  in the process
\nof reasoning on which the said conclusion is founded.
\n\tWhen we say  “every step in the reasoning” we mean
\nthe findings on the essential facts on which the judgment or
\nthe ultimate conclusion was founded.    In other words the
\nfinding which it was necessary to arrive at for the purpose of
\nsustaining the judgment in the particular case will operate as
\nestoppel by judgment.”\n<\/p>\n
The Civil Procedure Code contains the following provisions:
\n“Order 23 Rule 3 provides for compromise of suit  where it is
\nproved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been
\nadjusted wholly in part by any lawful agreement or
\ncompromise, written and signed by the parties.  The Court after
\nsatisfying itself about the settlement, it can convert the
\nsettlement into a judgment decree.”\n<\/p>\n
We have already discussed about the steps taken by the appellant to
\nserve notice on the respondent and the steps taken by him to perform his
\nobligations and sending of the notice and telegram etc. would not have been
\ndone unless the appellant was ready with his obligations and the money all
\nalong.  The appellant had waited till almost the last day for the respondent to
\nperform his obligations.  The High Court, in our view, has failed to note that
\nthe courts attempt should be to give life and enforceability to the
\ncompromise award and not to defeat it on technical grounds.  This is a fit
\ncase, in our view, where the Respondent ought to have been directed to
\nexecute the sale deed by the extended time, if necessary.  The High Court is
\nalso not correct in holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to extend the
\ntime.   In our view, the learned Subordinate Judge has rightly extended the
\ntime for depositing the money which the High Court has wrongly interfered
\nwith.\n<\/p>\n
We, therefore, hold that the order passed by the High Court in C.R.P.
\n1136\/2003 is liable to be set aside.  We do so accordingly.  We direct the
\nRespondent herein to execute the sale deed within two weeks from today
\nfailing which the Appellant could get the sale deed executed though court as
\nstipulated in the award.  The respondent is now entitled to withdraw Rs. 9.5
\nlakhs from the Sub-Court Alapuzha.  Though this is a fit case for awarding
\ncost, we refrain from doing so in view of the relationship between the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
\t The appeal is allowed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India P.T. Thomas vs Thomas Job on 4 August, 2005 Author: . Lakshmanan Bench: Ruma Pal, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4677 of 2005 PETITIONER: P.T. THOMAS RESPONDENT: THOMAS JOB DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/08\/2005 BENCH: RUMA PAL & Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P (C) No..20179\/2003) Dr.AR. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-81240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nP.T. Thomas vs Thomas Job on 4 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.T. Thomas vs Thomas Job on 4 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-10T17:15:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.T. Thomas vs Thomas Job on 4 August, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-10T17:15:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4495,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005\",\"name\":\"P.T. Thomas vs Thomas Job on 4 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-10T17:15:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.T. Thomas vs Thomas Job on 4 August, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P.T. Thomas vs Thomas Job on 4 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.T. Thomas vs Thomas Job on 4 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-10T17:15:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.T. Thomas vs Thomas Job on 4 August, 2005","datePublished":"2005-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-10T17:15:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005"},"wordCount":4495,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005","name":"P.T. Thomas vs Thomas Job on 4 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-10T17:15:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-thomas-vs-thomas-job-on-4-august-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.T. Thomas vs Thomas Job on 4 August, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81240","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=81240"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81240\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}