BASAMMA Vs. TALUKA LEGAL SEVICES COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the mother. 2nd respondent is her daughter. It is the property right which has taken a better hold against the natural affection of the mother and daughter in this case. The 2nd respondent daughter filed a suit in O. S. 60/99 against her mother- petitioner herein on the file of the Civil Judge, Balki for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of 34. 29 acres of agricultural land in Sy. No. 215 situate at Dongapur Village. The Trial Judge ordered issue of summons and directed the suit to be called on 23-7-1999. On 19-6-1999, the case was advanced at the request of the parties and the writ petitioner is alleged to have filed a written statement admitting the entire suit claim and the parties also filed a joint memo for referring the matter to the Legal Services Authority under S. 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (Act for short ). The learned Civil Judge acting on the memo, referred the matter to the legal Services Authority-1st respondent herein. 1st respondent took the papers on its file. By an order dated 19-6-1999 on the basis of the written statement filed before the trial Court decreed the suit by declaring the 2nd respondent as the owner and also restraining the petitioner by a decree of permanent injunction from interfering with 2nd respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment. This passing of the decree by the Legal Services Authority, Bidar is questioned in this petition by the petitioner on several grounds.

(2.) IT is contended in the petition that petitioner was never heard by both the Civil Judge and the Legal Services Authority before decreeing the suit. Petitioner has also denied that she ever filed the written statement, the basis for decreeing the suit.

(3.) A detail statement of objection has been filed by the 2nd respondent. It is contended that the petitioner did file the written statement admitting the suit claim and also signed the joint memo filed before the Civil Court for referring the matter to the Legal Services Authority. Under the circumstances, there was no need for hearing the petitioner. The Legal Services Authority has only given effect to the admissions made in the written statement. Therefore, there is no procedural illegality committed by the Authority. Writ Petition therefore, is liable to be dismissed.