ALFRED WILLIAM Vs. G.SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition is to the order passed by the District Legal Services Authority at Udhagamandalam in L.A.O.P.No.238 of 2021 and to set aside the judgment and decree passed based on the Joint Compromise Memo of Lok Adalat Award in O.S.No.22 of 2011 on the file of the District Judge, Udhagamandalam.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the suit has been originally filed by the respondents 1 to /plaintiffs for partition of the suit property and to lot 1/6th share to the plaintiffs; that it is averred in the plaint that the property was originally owned by one Francis Thevar, who had four children, viz., i) Rajamanickam, ii) Chellamary, iii) Amalorpavamary and iv) F.Lourdmary; that the entire property has been bequeathed by the said Francis Thevar in favour of his son Rajamanickam vide a sale deed, registered as Document No.12 of 1954 dtd. 24/9/1954; that the said Rajamanickam having had no lineal descendants, he purported to have adopted the second defendant as his son; that though the plaint proceeded, as if, adoption is not recognized under the law, the written statement filed by the defendants treating the second defendant as son of the said Rajamanickam is not disputed; that while things stood thus, the matter has been referred to the Lok Adalat by the plaintiffs and few defendants and the parties have entered into a compromise and based on the said memo of compromise, award has been passed, the defendants 2, 3 and 4 have not even signed either in the compromise memo or the Award. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel that when the revision petitioner was not even aware of the lok adalath proceedings, as he has not even participated in the such and did not sign the Memo of Compromise or the award and the joint Memo of Compromise is signed only by four defendants out of seven defendant, award has been passed in the absence of defendants 2, 3 and 4 is not valid in the eye of law and hence, prayed to set aside the award.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that the defendants 2, 3 and 4 in the suit have not signed the award.