Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has made it clear that legal heirs cannot seek to invalidate a compromise recorded by a Lok Adalat, and the consequential award, merely by raising allegations of fraud after the death of a parent who was a party to the settlement. The court noted that in this case the parent was alive for more than one-and-a-half years after the Lok Adalat award, but never challenged it.
The court also clarified that even in circumstances of an award not being challenged by the parents, the legal heirs must establish that the parent was fraudulently made to enter into the compromise or that the Lok Adalat award was obtained behind their back.
A division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara dismissed a writ petition filed by a 20-year-old woman and her minor brother, challenging a Lok Adalat award passed in 2019 in a property dispute involving their deceased father.
The dispute arose from an agreement of sale executed by their father B. Sai Paul Reddy in favour of two private persons in 1988 after receiving the entire sale consideration and handing over possession. The purchasers subsequently obtained a registered GPA from him and, after the original suit was dismissed, an appeal was filed. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a compromise before the Lok Adalat .
The petitioners in 2024 questioned the signatures of their father on the compromise and other documents and alleged that there was fraud. However, the High Court noted that their father was alive for more than one-and-a-half years after the Lok Adalat award but never challenged it. His wife too did not object to the compromise.
The bench held that the petitioners had not produced any evidence to show that their father’s counsel before the Lok Adalat had been questioned regarding the alleged fraudulent procurement of his signature. It also found no material discrepancy in his signatures appearing on the agreement of sale, GPA, written statement and memorandum of compromise.
The bench rejected the petitioners’ contention that their consent was required for the 1988 agreement of sale, noting that the first petitioner was born in 2003, 15 years after the transaction. It said the Hindu Succession Act could not be invoked to treat her as a coparcener in 1988.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
