P.T. THOMAS versus THOMAS JOB

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 04-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
P.T. THOMAS 
v. 
THOMAS JOB 
AUGUST 4, 2005 
[RUMA PAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Property dispute-Partition of ancestral property amongst brothers by 
metes and bounds-Part allotted to one of brother not vacated by other-
Suit for mandatory injunction for possession-Decree by trial court-
Pending appeal, compromise in Lok Ada/at providing for sale and payment 
of consideration within a prescribed time, and on default execution of sale 
through court-Notice by decree holder ca!ling on the judgment debtor to 
execute the sale deed returning unserved-Petition of decree holder to Trial 
Court for execution of award of Lok Ada/at allowed with direction to him 
to deposit the requisite amount in court, and same complied with-Dismissal 
of execution petition by High Court-Whether proper-Held : Initiative for 
J initiating execution of sale deed had to come from judgment debtor and not 
from decree holder-Decree holder had performed his obligation by sending 
notice to judgment debtor before the expiry of time, and as it was correctly 
addressed, there was presumption of law that it has been served-High Court 
was wrong in holding that the Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time 
for depositing the money. 
Post Office Act-Section 26-Evidence Act-Section I I 4-Notice-
Service of-Postman giving notice making endorsement that noticee was 
F 
absent-Despite intimation by post office, notice returning unserved-Held 
: There was presumption of law that notice has been served-Examination 
of the post man was not needed. 
G 
Lok Adalats-Award of-It is fictionally deemed to be decrees of 
Court-Therefore, the courts have all the powers in relation thereto as it has 
in relation to a decree passed by itself, including the powers to extend time 
in appropriate cases. 
Respondent is elder brother of appellant. The~-, along with another 
brother who was in USA, had partitioned by metes and bounds the 
H 
property left behind by their father, which included a theatre run by 
20 
.. 
• 
' 
P.T. THOMAS v. THOMAS JOB 
21 
respondent. A part of the theatre fell in the property allotted to the 
A 
. appellant. Since respondent did not give its vacant possession to appellant, 
he filed a suit for mandatory injunction for removal of the building and 
surrender of vacant possession. This suit was decreed. However, during 
pendency of appeal against the decree, the dispute was referred to Lok 
Ada lat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, I 987. Lok 
Adalat settled the dispute by its award providing for sale to appellant the 
property as described in the schedule. This sale was to take place after 
one year and within two years appellant was to pay the respondent Rs. 
9.5 lakhs. It was also provided that on default of respondent to execute 
B 
the document, the appellant could get it executed through court. On 
default on part of appellant, it was provided that he would give up his 
C 
aforesaid right and be entitled to be paid Rs. 3.5 lakhs by respondent. 
However, as respondent did not execute the sale deed within the fixed 
time, the appellant sent a lawyer's notice calling on him to execute the 
sale deed. This notice returned unserved. Thereafter, appellant sent a 
telegram to same effect, and also sent copy of his earlier notice by 
certificate of posting. As there was no response from the respondent, 
appellant petitioned the Trial Court to execute the award. Trial Court 
allowed the execution and directed the appellant to deposit in court the 
requisite amount within the time limit prescribed, Which he complied 
with. High Court ho,veve1 dismissed the execution petition. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Appellant contended that respondent had not performed his 
obligation by evincing willingness to execute the sale deed on , eceipt of 
the amount of Rs. 9.5. lakhs. 
D 
E 
Respondent contended that the award of Lok Ada lat cannot be· F 
equated with decree as it incorporates a compromise between the parties, 
and in case of violation of same, the parties lose their right to get the same 
executed; that the appellant neither had the resources nor ever offered 
the said amount to respondent at any point of time, and belated payment 
after the order of the executing court will not improve their case to prove 
G 
readiness and willingness to deposit a sum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs on the specified 
date on the basis of which the matter was compromised; and that there 
was no effective service of any notice on them and 

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