Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dindukurthi Ramprasad vs V. Pradeep Kumar on 17 April, 2025
APHC010286272022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Thursday
Thursday, the Seventeenth day of April
Two Thousand and Twenty Five
Present
The Honourable Ms. Justice B.
B S. Bhanumathi
Civil Revision Petition No.583 of 2025
Between:
Dindukurthi Ramprasad S/o D.Ramachandraiah
D.Ramach
Aged about 45 years, R/o Vidya Nagar, Kurnool
...Petitioner
Petitioner
and
V.Pradeep Kumar S/o late V. A. Patel
R/o Bandimetta Street, Kurnool
...Respondent
Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner:
etitioner:
Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha
Counsel for the respondent:
espondent:
Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai
The Court made the following:
2
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025
ORDER:
This revision under Section 115 CPC is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 03.02.2025, allowing E.P.No.2 of 2019 in P.L.C.No.3030 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool, filed by the decree holder against the judgment debtor under Order XXI, rules 34 and 35 and Section 151 CPC to issue notice to the JDr directing him to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the DHr at the cost of DHr in respect of EP schedule property, order delivery of possession and on his failure, order the same under due process of law.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The facts as stated in the affidavit filed in support of E.P.No.2 of 2019, in brief, are as follows:
a. The JDr executed an agreement of sale, dated 13.05.2015, in respect of the petition schedule property in favour of the DHr. The dispute was referred to Lok Adalat, Kurnool. After notice, both parties were present before the Lok Adalat, terms of compromise were prepared and after due enquiry, the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat. An award, dated 04.08.2015, was passed in terms of the compromise. One of the terms of the compromise was not incorporated in the award due to oversight. Thereupon, petition No.42 of 2016 was filed seeking amendment of the award of the Lok Adalat and after notice to the JDr, the award was amended on 29.01.2016. Thereafter, the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- was also paid to the JDr in anticipation that the JDr may come for registration of the sale deed. However, as the JDr did not come forward for registration of the sale deed, the DHr filed execution petition.3
BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 b. E.P.No.1443 of 2017 was filed seeking a direction to the JDr to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the DHr and deliver possession of the EP schedule property. The DHr could not contact his counsel on the date of adjournment and consequently, the EP was dismissed on 17.04.2019 for default. Hence, the present execution petition was filed seeking a direction to the JDr to execute the sale deed in favour of the DHr as aforesaid.
4. The JDr filed counter opposing the petition and denying his liability to execute the registered sale deed. It is further contended in the counter as follows:
a. There is no executable decree. The pre-litigation award is merely an agreement to sell the petition schedule property for Rs.50,00,000/- to the DHr after receiving Rs.38,00,000/- at the first instance and Rs.2,00,000/- on 08.06.2015.
b. The JDr never intended to sell the EP schedule property to the DHr. Since the DHr promised that on payment of the debts, the award will be torn off, the JDr signed the award before the Lok Adalat as an agreement to sell the property assuring (the repayment of) the loan. As the JDr did not agree for passing of the award for execution of the sale deed, that part was not incorporated in the award.
c. The award filed by the DHr contains material alterations with regard to clause (3), viz., incorporating the words "also received Rs.9,00,000/- on 25.07.2015". The said incorporation is without the knowledge and consent of the JDr.
d. With regard to payment of Rs.9,00,000/- on 25.07.2015, there was no mention of it in the award. But, the award was subsequently 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 amended without the knowledge and consent of the JDr. DHr impersonated the JDr before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority and committed fraud for passing an order of amendment. Since, JDr was not present, his signature was not obtained on the amendment.
e. The amendment was not carried out by the Lok Adalat. The members of the Lok Adalat were not present at the time of passing the order for amendment. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority has no authority to amend the orders passed by the Lok Adalat. Since the amendment carried out in the award was without the authority and without the knowledge of the JDr, the award is non est and inexecutable.
f. As per the award, the DHr agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of registration of sale deed in his favour. The award does not contemplate that the JDr shall execute the sale deed in pursuance of the compromise and it was only an agreement to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- to the JDr at the time of registration.
g. The receipt, dated 20.08.2016, filed by the DHr is not executed by the JDr and in fact, no such payment was made to him on 20.08.2016. The DHr obtained his signatures on white papers along with signatures on terms of compromise. Those papers were misused by the DHr for preparing the receipt. Any payments subsequent to the award shall be as per Order XXI, rules 1 and 2 CPC. Therefore, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. After hearing both parties, the District Court allowed the petition. The operative portion of the order impugned reads as follows:
5BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 "In the result, this Execution Petition is allowed without costs. The Decree-Holder is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the Judgment-debtor within a period of one month from the date of this order or he shall deposit the said amount into this court within one month from the date of this order and on such payment / deposit, the Judgment-debtor is directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the Decree-holder in respect of the Execution Petition schedule property."
6. Aggrieved thereby, the judgment debtor filed this revision petition.
7. The award, dated 04.08.2015, passed by the Lok Adalat reads as follows:
"1. Petitioner and respondent are present and the matter is compromised in the presence of members of Lok Adalat held today.
2. That the respondent agreed to sell the petition schedule land, shed and machinery and its attachments to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty lakhs only) to the petitioner, received a sum of Rs.38,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty eight lakhs only) from the petitioner on dt.13.05.2015 and the balance sale consideration is payable within twelve months from the date of agreement and incorporating the terms of contract the respondent got executed agreement of sale, dt.13.05.2015 in favour of the petitioner.
3. That the respondent also received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) from the petitioner on 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025
8.6.2015, *[also received Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs) on 25.7.2015], the part payments were endorsed on the reverse of the agreement of sale dt.13.5.2015. The petitioner has agreed to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent at the time of registration of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner or his order at his cost for which respondent also agreed.
4. In the result, award is passed accordingly.
SCHEDULE Plot No.35, situated within the limits of Kallur (V), Kallur Sub Registration District, Kurnool city limits, Municipal Ward No.77, land in Sy.No.519, situating near Municipal bearing D.No.77/184, APIIC Ltd., Industrial Estate, Kallur, Kurnool along with shed and machinery.
Both parties have affixed their signatures in evidence of their consent for the terms of award.
Note:- Award in Para No.3 in second line is amended as per Petition No.42/2016 vide orders, dated 29.01.2016."
8. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the amendment in the award was carried out by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, who has no jurisdiction to pass or amend an award since it is the Lok Adalat which alone can pass the award as per Section 20(3) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ('the Act', for short). He further submitted that when law prescribes certain things to be done in a certain way, they must be done only in that manner. He further contended that when a material alteration is made to a document ____________________ * is inserted by amendment 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 without proper authority and without consent of a party to it, the whole document is rendered void.
9. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:-
(i) In Sanjay Kumar Vs. Secretary, City Civil Court Legal Services Authority and others1, it was held at paras No.9 to 11 as follows:
"9. The Act provided a statutory backing and support to Lok Adalats, organizing which is one of the functions of the Legal Services Authorities constituted under the Act. A 'Lok Adalat' is defined as meaning a Lok Adalat organized under Chapter VI of the Act by Section 2(d) thereof and under Section 19, the Lok Adalats are organized by the different Legal Services Authorities constituted at different levels, consisting of the members specified therein. A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise for settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of the matters specified in Sub-section (5) of Section 19 and after taking cognizance as per Section 20, a Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties with utmost expedition guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles as per Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 20. Section 21(2) makes every award made by a Lok Adalat final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. The 1 (2007) 6 ALD 217 8 BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 provisions of Chapter VI, thus, show a Lok Adalat to be a different and distinct legal entity performing statutory functions than the Legal Services Authorities constituted under the Act. Section 22, while conferring the same powers as a Civil Court on the Lok Adalats in respect of specified matters, also provides the possibility for such powers of the Civil Court being exercised by a Lok Adalat in respect of such other matters as may be prescribed. Subject to the same, Sub-
section (2) of Section 22 gives the requisite powers to every Lok Adalat to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it. The Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules") provide in Rule 18 for execution of awards passed by the Lok Adalats in respect of pending cases and pre litigation cases by the Courts specified therein and for refund of Court fee in pending cases. The Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1996 (for short "the Regulations") made in exercise of the statutory power under Section 29-A of the Act, make provisions in respect of Lok Adalats in Chapter IX. Regulation 32 regarding composition of the Lok Adalat, Regulation 36 about functioning of the Lok Adalat and Regulation 47 in respect of miscellaneous matters more particularly indicate the Lok Adalat to be a separate and independent legal entity than the Legal Services Authorities.
10. The Member-Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority under Section 6 or the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee under Section 8A or the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority under Section 9 or the 9 BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 Chairman of the Taluk Legal Services Committee under Section 11A perform respectively such functions and exercise respectively such powers as may be prescribed or assigned to them. The Rules provide for the powers and functions of the Member-Secretary of the State Authority in Rule 4. The Regulations provide for functions of the State Authority, powers and functions of the High Court Committee, additional functions of the District Authority and additional functions of the Taluk Committee, but do not provide for any separate powers or functions for the functionaries therein. Regulation 29 provides for the Secretary of the High Court Committee or the District Authority or the Chairman of the Taluk Committee convening and organizing Lok Adalats at regular intervals. Under Regulation 30 they shall intimate the same to the State Authority, while under Regulation 31 they shall issue notice to the parties concerned. Under Regulation 32 they shall constitute Benches of Lok Adalats comprising of the specified Members and the power of directly supervising the Lok Adalats organized by the respective Bodies was given to the Chairman of the High Court Committee, the District Authority and the Taluk Committee but not to the Secretaries of the High Court Committee or the District Authority under Sub-regulation 4 of Regulation 32. The responsibility for summoning records and their safe custody was put on the Secretaries of the High Court Committee and District Authority and the Chairman of the Taluk Committee under Regulation 35 and the duty of assigning specific cases to each Bench of the Lok Adalat and preparing a cause list was also placed on them under Regulation 36. Sub-regulation 3 of Regulation 36 10 BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 puts the responsibility for making sincere efforts to bring about a conciliatory settlement without any kind of coercion, threat or undue influence, allurement or misrepresentation in every case, on every Bench of the Lok Adalat and not on the Secretaries or Chairmen. Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be signed by the panel constituting the Lok Adalat under Regulation 38 and the Secretaries of the High Court Legal Services Committee or District Legal Services Authority or Chairman of the Mandal Legal Services Committee were only given the power of duly certifying the copies of awards. The Secretaries of the High Court Committee or the District Authority or the Chairman of the Taluk Committee have to compile the results under Regulation 40 and maintain the panels of Lok Adalat Judges under Regulation 41 and maintain record of cases under Regulation 43. In effect and substance, either the statutory provisions or the Rules and Regulations referred to above only entrust secretarial functions and ministerial responsibilities to the Secretaries to the High Court Committee or District Authority or the Chairman of the Taluk Committee in respect of the functioning of the Lok Adalats, which is made more explicit by Sub- regulation 3 of Regulation 47 which specifies that they shall provide all assistance as may be necessary to the Lok Adalats. Their powers or functions are nothing more or nothing less.
11. A reading together of all the provisions, thus, clearly discloses that the exercise of the judicial powers, performance of judicial functions and discharge of judicial responsibilities in 11 BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 respect of the disputes referred to Lok Adalats, are the exclusive preserve of the respective Benches of Lok Adalats and neither the Act nor the Rules nor the Regulations provide for any delegation of such powers to any other Authority or Functionary. The Lok Adalats in the State were not stated to have specified their own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before them under Sub-section (2) of Section 22 or Sub-regulation 4 of Regulation 47 which provides that every Bench of the Lok Adalat may evolve its own procedure for conducting the proceedings before it and shall not be bound by either the Civil Procedure Code or the Evidence Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure subject, however, to the principles of natural justice. Bereft of any such procedure under Section 22(2) or Regulation 47(4), there is no provision or principle which enables the Secretaries of the High Court Committee or the District Authority or the Chairman of the Taluk Committee to assume jurisdiction over the judicial powers or functions or duties or responsibilities of a Lok Adalat, their powers, duties and functions being purely secretarial in nature and administrative in character."
(ii) In Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor2, it was held at para No.12 as follows:
"12. ... The rule which applies is a different and not less well recognized rule, namely, that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are 2 AIR 1936 PC 253(2) 12 BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 necessarily forbidden. This doctrine has often been applied to Courts-Taylor v. Taylor [L.R. 1 Ch. D. 426 (at p. 431)] and although the magistrate acting under this group of sections is not acting as a Court" yet he is a judicial officer, and both as a matter of construction and of good sense there are strong reasons for applying the rule in question to Section 164."
(iii) In Loonkaran Sethiya and Ors. Vs. Ivan E. John and Ors.3, it was held at paras 22 to 24 as follows:
"22. Question No. 5:- Before proceeding to determine this question, it would be well to advert to the legal position bearing on the matter. As aptly stated in paragraph 1378 of Volume 12 of Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) "if an alteration (by erasure, interlineation, or otherwise) is made in a material part of a deed, after its execution, by or with the consent of any party to or person entitled under it, but without the consent of the party or parties liable under it, the deed is rendered void from the time of the alteration so as to prevent the person who has made or authorised the alteration, and those claiming under him, from putting the deed in suit to enforce against any party bound by it, who did not consent to the alteration, any obligation, covenant, or promise thereby undertaken or made.
23. A material alteration, according to this authoritative work, is one which varies the rights, liabilities, or legal position of the parties as ascertained by the deed in its original state, or otherwise varies the legal effect of the instrument as originally 3 AIR 1977 SC 336 13 BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 expressed, or reduces to certainty some provision which was originally unascertained and as such void, or which may otherwise prejudice the party bound by the deed as originally executed.
24. The effect of making such an alteration without the consent of the party bound is exactly the same as that of cancelling the deed."
10. He further submitted that the JDr had not appeared before the Lok Adalat as the notice was not served, and therefore, it is impersonation and thus, allowing the amendment in the absence of the JDr is illegal.
11. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Yalamarthi Narasimha Rao Vs. The District Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) at Vijayawada and Ors. 4. In the said decision, at para No.20, the following directions were issued:
"(a) we, hereby direct the members of Lok Adalat, more particularly, the Sub-ordinate Officers dealing with the Lok Adalat cases to verify the documents of the suit or at least the plaint copy to find out as to whether all the parties before the Civil Court are made parties before the Lok Adalat.
b) Photographs of the parties may also be taken at the time of passing of the award, with signature of the parties on the photographs, so as to avoid impersonation.
(c) Legal Services authorities, at all levels, are directed to maintain the record of disposed off cases, namely the applications filed, photographs along with the application, 4 (2022) 1 ALD 547 14 BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 documents, if any, filed along with the application and the award passed, atleast for a period of three years from the date of award.
(d) The members or member of the Lok Adalat shall find out from the parties as to pendency of any other proceedings in respect of the subject property between the parties in any other Court and orders if any passed. The same shall also be recorded in the order / award.
(e) The members of the Lok Adalat shall verify if the compromise / settlement is between all the parties and if it finds that it is not between all but some of the parties, it shall consider if such compromise may have adverse affect on the party who has not entered into compromise. If it so affects award shall not be passed based on such compromise.
(f) If all the parties before the civil court are parties before the Lok Adalat, but during the pendency of the proceedings before the Lok Adalat, any application is filed or request is made to delete the name of any of the parties as not being necessary or proper party or being a formal party and non contesting party, the Lok Adalat shall before acceding to such request shall provide opportunity to such party before deletion of his / her name and shall also consider the impact of the award based on compromise / settlement between the parties other than the party sought to be deleted on the rights of the party sought to be deleted or alleged as proforma and non-
contesting party.
15BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent / DHr submitted that the award can be challenged under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Section 115 CPC. He further submitted that there are no rules of procedure and strict law apply to the proceedings before the Lok Adalat as per Section 20(4) of the Act and equal justice and fair play would govern the Lok Adalat in determining any matter before it. He further submitted that the revision petitioner / JDr received substantial amount of Rs.49 lakhs out of total consideration of Rs. Rs.50,00,000/- and it is only an attempt to avoid the liability. He further stated that in fact, the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was also paid, but as the payment was not believed by the execution Court and directed the DHr to pay it, the same was again paid. He further submitted that the revision petitioner nowhere stated that he had not received Rs.9,00,000/- which is incorporated in the award based on the terms of compromise filed before the Legal Services Authority, but on the other hand, it was noted in the undisputed document of terms of compromise which is the basis of the Award. He further submitted that the award must be in accordance with the terms of compromise filed before the Lok Adalat, and therefore, it is only to bring the award in line with the terms of compromise filed before the Lok Adalat, the necessary amendment was carried out. It is also submitted by him that irrespective of the amendments, because of receipt of Rs.9,00,000/-, the terms of compromise and the award stipulates payment of balance of Rs.1,00,000/- only at the time of registration of sale deed, and therefore, the JDr cannot object for execution of the compromise decree which was originally passed by the Lok Adlat as it stands before its amendment. He further submitted that the decisions relied on by the revision petitioner for material alteration in the award do not apply to the present case as the alteration in the award is not 16 BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 material and is only ancillary to what was already recorded and irrespective of the same, the main award can be executed.
13. A perusal of the award (extracted supra) shows that there is no dispute about the original terms of compromise filed before the Lok Adalat which contains a statement that JDr received Rs.9,00,000/- in addition to Rs.38,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, and therefore, it was agreed to receive balance of Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of registration while agreeing to execute the sale deed. In fact, the award should be in accordance with the terms of compromise. However, while preparing the award, there was an omission to mention receipt of Rs.9,00,000/-, however, the award is clear that the defendant / JDr shall execute a sale deed on receipt of the said amount as mentioned therein.
14. Section 9 of the Act reads as under:
"9. District Legal Services Authority--(1) The State Government shall, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, constitute a body to be called the District Legal Services Authority for every district in the State to exercise the powers and perform the functions conferred on, or assigned to, the District Authority under this Act.
(2) A District Authority shall consist of ---
(a) the District Judge who shall be its Chairman; and
(b) such number of other members, possessing such experience and qualifications, as may be prescribed by the State Government, to be nominated by that Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. (3) The State Authority, shall, in consultation with the Chairman of the District Authority, appoint a person belonging 17 BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 to the State Judicial Service not lower in rank than that of a Subordinate Judge or Civil Judge posted at the seat of the District Authority to exercise such powers and perform such duties under Chairman of that Committee as may be assigned to him by such Chairman.
(4) The terms of office and other conditions relating thereto, of members and Secretary of the District Authority shall be such as may be determined by regulations made by the State Authority in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court.
(5) ......(7) xx xxx (8) All orders and decisions of the District Authority shall be authenticated by the Secretary or by any other officer of the District Authority duly authorized by the Chairman of that Authority."
15. The duties of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority are not akin to the jurisdiction of a Lok Adalat award. As such, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority has no authority to make an amendment in the award as rightly contended by the revision petitioner.
16. The next question would be whether the whole award becomes void and in-executable?
17. The first contention that the award is only an agreement to sell cannot be accepted as there is admittedly a separate written agreement before passing of the award and what is agreed through the terms of award is to execute a registered sale deed on payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. In passing a decree granting specific performance, Court directs the party (defendant) to execute a registered 18 BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 sale deed, on receipt of balance sale consideration, if any payable. But in case of award passed by a Lok Adalat there cannot be any such direction since it contains terms as agreed between the parties. Therefore, the statements in an award do not direct any party, but merely indicate what a party (parties) has/have done and/or has/have to do. Therefore, in the present case merely because the terms of the award are in the form of what a party has to do, it is not an agreement as contended by the revision petitioner / JDr, but a decree executable.
18. In the preset case, the original award, irrespective of the amendment, contains terms as agreed between the parties. The amendment is in no way altering the nature of the executable terms in the award passed by the Lok Adalat. All amendments are not material. A material alteration is one which substantially effects any transaction. In this case, whether or not the receipt of amounts at various spells was mentioned in the award, the ultimate executable terms agreed between the parties is to pay Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of registration and the defendant agreeing to execute the sale deed. The rest of the elements in the award are only historical background to arrive at such negotiations. Therefore, inclusion of Rs.9,00,000/- by altering the award by amendment does not materially change the award and moreover, it is exactly in consonance with the agreed terms which are undisputed and filed before the Lok Adalat. As such, the JDr in any manner is not prejudiced by the altered term as he is not deprived of such amount which was already received as agreed and recorded in the undisputed document of compromise terms. Therefore, such an amendment cannot be material alteration of the award so as to render the whole award void and in-executable. Therefore, while agreeing with the contention of the revision petitioner that the amendment ought not to 19 BSB, J C.R.P.No.583 of 2025 have been done by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, since the decree can be executed ignoring the material alteration by amendment of the award, the revision petitioner has no grievance and therefore, the revision petitioner cannot oppose the execution.
19. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed while upholding the executability of the award/decree subject to the observation regarding the authority of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority to amend the award.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 17.04.2025 RAR