K. SRINIVASAPPA & ORS. versus M. MALLAMMA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 190 · Decided: 18-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
K. SRINIVASAPPA & ORS.
v.
M. MALLAMMA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3486-3488 of 2022)
MAY 18, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or. XXIII r. 3 – Compromise
of suit – Compromise recorded by the Lok Adalat, between the parties
to the suit – Recall of said order by the High Court in writ petitions
filed there against – Sustainability of – Held: Writ court cannot, in
a casual manner, de hors any reasoning, set aside the order of the
Lok Adalat – Strong reasons are required to recall a compromise
recorded – Compromise ultimately results into a decree of a court
which can be enforced just as a decree and such decree shall be
final and binding upon the parties – Writ petition would only be
maintainable against an award of the Lok Adalat, on allegation of
fraud in the manner of obtaining the award of compromise – Terms
of a compromise decree, cannot be avoided, unless the allegation
of fraud has been proved – In the absence of any conclusive proof
as to fraud on the part of the objectors, the High Court could not
have set aside the compromise decree – High Court’s decision to set
aside the order of the Lok Adalat, without entering into a discussion
as to the findings in such order, cannot be sustained – Such decision
of the High Court is against the principle of protecting the sanctity
and finality of orders based on a compromise or consent between
parties – Judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the
Lok Adalat  is restored – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – s.
21.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There are no reasons forthcoming from the
judgment of the High court while setting aside the order of the
Lok Adalat whereby the terms of the compromise were recorded.
To recall a compromise that has been recorded would call for
strong reasons. This is because a compromise would result
ultimately into a decree of a Court which can be enforced just as
a decree passed on an adjudication of a case. This is also true in
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 190
190
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
191
the case of a compromise recorded before a Lok Adalat. Section
21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 equates an award
of the Lok Adalat, to a decree of a Civil Court and imputes an
element of finality to an award of compromise passed by the Lok
Adalat. When the Lok Adalat disposes cases in terms of a
compromise arrived at between the parties to a suit, after following
principles of equity and natural justice, every such award of the
Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and
such decree shall be final and binding upon the parties. Given
the element of finality attached to an award of the Lok Adalat, it
also follows that no appeal would lie, under Section 96 CPC
against such award. [Paras 27, 28][202-H; 203-A-B, E-F]
1.2 While a writ petition would be maintainable against an
award of the Lok Adalat, especially when such writ petition has
been filed alleging fraud in the manner of obtaining the award of
compromise, a writ court cannot, in a casual manner, de hors any
reasoning, set aside the order of the Lok Adalat. The award of a
Lok Adalat cannot be reversed or set aside without setting aside
the facts recorded in such award as being fraudulent arrived at.
[Para 29][203-G]
1.3 The Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex”
meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of
any particular law ceases, so does the law itself”. There is a duty
to accord reasons for a decision arrived at by a court, or for that
matter, even a quasi-judicial authority. [Para 30-31][204-A-B]
H H Sri Swamiji of Sri Admar Mutt v. the Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept.
(1979) 4 SCC 642 : [1980] 1 SCR 368; Kranti
Associates Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed
Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC  496 : [2010] 10 SCR 1070
– relied on.
1.4 The Lok Adalat, in its award dated 07th July, 2012
recorded that the parties had admitted that the contents of the
compromise petition were true and correct, after the terms thereof
had been read over and explained to them in Kannada language.
Further, it was also noted that the compromise was entered into
K. SRINIVASAPPA & ORS. v. M. MALLAMMA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
192
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
by plaintiff no. 1, on behalf of, and for the benefit of his two minor
children, in order to protect their shares. The same was allowed
by the Lok Adalat on recognising the term

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.