Telangana High Court
K. Kalyani vs State Legal Services Authority on 30 October, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.7968 OF 2024
Sri S. Maneesh Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Sheelam Ashok Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners.
Sri S.Ramesh, learned counsel representing Sri Pusluri Shashi Kiran, the learned
Standing Counsel for TSLSA appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.
Sri M.V. Prathap Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.
ORDER:(Per The Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The petitioners seek a declaration that an un-dated Lok Adalat Award passed in O.S.No.674 of 2020 on the file of the Mandal Legal Services Committee: Additional Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, is illegal, violates the principles of natural justice and is contrary to the provisions of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ('the 1987 Act').
2. The impugned Award was passed in a Suit filed by the respondent No.4 before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kushaiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District ('Trial Court') for partition and separate possession. The petitioner No.1 was the defendant No.3; the petitioner No.2 was the defendant No.4 in the said Suit filed by the respondent No.4. The respondent No.5 was the 2 defendant No.1; the respondent No.6 was the defendant No.2 in the said Suit.
3. The petitioner Nos.1, 2 and the respondent Nos.4 and 6 are sisters and brothers and children of the respondent No.5. The respondent No.4 filed the Suit before the Trial Court for partition and separate possession against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 (defendant Nos.1 and 2) and the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 (defendant Nos.3 and 4). As stated above, the defendants in the said Suit were the mother and the three other siblings of the respondent No.4/plaintiff. According to the respondent No.4, the Suit was settled between the parties culminating in the impugned Award recording, inter alia, that the plaintiff and the defendants have resolved their disputes and concludes the following:
(i) That all the defendants have mutually agreed to give-up their respective 1/5th share of land/Ac.02-19 gts. of land per defendant in the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff.
(ii) The Award further records that the plaintiff had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.20,30,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty Thousand Only) to each of the defendant and the same has been paid to the said defendants and the same was acknowledged in the Registered Special Power of Attorneys.
(iii) That all the defendants have already signed a Release Deed in favour of the plaintiff relinquishing their respective shares in the schedule 3 property.
The impugned Award is an un-dated Award.
4. The petitioners, i.e., the two sisters of the respondent No.4/plaintiff, have challenged the impugned Lok Adalat Award on the ground of the Suit being filed against the petitioners without service of notice to them.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the parties entered into a Registered Partition Deed on 28.12.2020 and that the respondent No.4 took care of all the documentation by obtaining the signatures of the petitioners on various documents/blank papers/blank non-judicial stamp papers etc. on the premise that the signatures are required for completing the partition and mutation of the schedule property. Counsel submits that the petitioner No.2 left India on 31.12.2020 after signing the documents on the bona fide belief that the Partition Deed was executed in respect of all the properties except the suit schedule property and that the petitioner No.1 only came to know on 29.01.2024 that the respondent Nos.4-6 had undertaken the development activities on the subject property. Counsel submits that the petitioners immediately tried to contact the respondent No.5 (their mother) as well as the respondent No.6 (their brother)/the defendant No.2 in the Suit but could not get any answers from them. The petitioners hence decided to take steps for filing a Partition Suit and accordingly the petitioner No.2 had sent a power of attorney authorizing the petitioner No.1 for the purpose of instituting the Partition Suit. During the process of collating 4 the information for filing of the Suit, the petitioners came to know that there has been a layout permission issued by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and also that the respondent No.4/plaintiff portraying himself to be the absolute owner had initially applied for mutation in respect of the subject property and had also approached the High Court for a direction on the Revenue authorities. Counsel submits that the petitioners came to know on 11.03.2024 that the respondent Nos.4-6 have fraudulently obtained the impugned Lok Adalat Award in O.S.No.674 of 2020 on the strength of a Registered General Power of Attorney executed by the petitioners in favour of the respondent No.5 vide Registered GPA dated 28.12.2020.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submits that the Writ Petition has been filed by suppressing material facts including that the petitioners executed Registered General Power of Attorneys, Registered Special Power of Attorneys as well as a Release Deed after receiving Rs.20,30,000/- each of the defendants. Senior Counsel submits that a Registered Gift Deed on 28.12.2020 was executed in favour of the petitioner No.2 by the respondent No.5 in respect of 6883 Sq. Yards (27 Plots). Prior to that, by registered document dated 14.06.2019 that the husband of the petitioner No.1 was also allotted 9249 Sq. Yds. in Landmark Colony though he was entitled to 4295 Sq. Yards. Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners also executed a Release Deed dated 28.12.2020 relinquishing all the rights to the subject property. It is 5 also submitted that the petitioners failed to challenge the impugned Award within the limitation of three years as under Article 59 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963, the said three years expired by 28.12.2023 and further submits that the petitioners are not entitled to question the transaction after having received substantial sums of money. It is also urged that an impugned Award is deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and drawing up of an Award is merely an administrative act by incorporating the terms of settlement under Regulation 17 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 supports the contention of the respondent No.4 and lays emphasis on the GPAs executed by the petitioners in favour of the respondent No.5 and the Release Deed by which the petitioners relinquished their rights.
8. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
9. The dispute is essentially between the two sisters (petitioners) and the brother and mother (respondent Nos.4 and 5, respectively). The respondent No.6 (the other brother) claims to be a disinterested party.
10. The brief facts relevant to the present adjudication are stated below:
11. On 25.05.2000, a Sale Deed was executed by P. Pochaiah and 8 other persons in favour of K. Tirupathaiah vide a Registered Sale Deed 6 being the absolute owners and possessors of the land at Dayara Village, Keesara Mandal, Shamirpet, Ranga Reddy District,.
12. K. Tirupathaiah passed away on 06.02.2010 leaving behind his legal heirs that is the petitioners and the respondent Nos.4-6. The respondent No.5 is the wife of the late K. Tirupathaiah. The legal heirs thus became entitled to 1/5th share each in the properties belonging to the late K. Tirupathaiah. The parties executed a Registered Partition Deed on 28.12.2020. The respondent No.4/plaintiff took care of all the documentation including obtaining the signatures of the petitioners for completing the Partition as well as the Mutation of the properties. The petitioner No.2 left India three days later on 31.12.2020 under the bona fide belief and impression that the Partition Deed has been executed in respect of all the properties except the subject property.
13. On 29.01.2024, the petitioner No.1 came to know about the development activities being undertaken on the subject property by the respondent Nos.4-6. An irrevocable GPA was executed by the petitioner No.2, who is residing in USA had asked the petitioner No.1 (her sister) to initiate the steps. On 16.02.2024, the petitioner No.1 initiated steps for filing of a Partition Suit. The petitioner No.2 sent a Power of Attorney authorizing the petitioner No.1 to institute a Partition Suit to protect their share in the property left by their late father.
7
14. It is not disputed that the respondent No.4 filed a Suit (O.S.No.674 of 2020) on 21.12.2020 against the petitioners and the respondent Nos.5 and 6 for Partition of the Suit property and allotment of 1/5th share to the respondent No.4/plaintiff and each of the defendants. A Registered GPA was executed by the petitioner No.2 in favour of her mother (respondent No.5) on 28.12.2020 authorizing the latter to deal with her undivided 1/5th share in the subject property. Similar Registered GPAs were executed by the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.6 in favour of their mother/respondent No.5 on the same day. The respondent No.4 claims that all the parties allotted the house property situated at Sainikpuri to the two brothers (respondent Nos.4 and 6) in equal shares. The petitioners and the respondent No.5 were given Rs.2 lakhs each in lieu of their share. A Release Deed was executed by the petitioners and the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in favour of the respondent No.4 on 28.12.2020 in respect of their individual 1/5th shares. The petitioners and the respondent Nos.5 and 6 received Rs.20,30,000/- each through online mode of payment.
15. However, the Release Deed could not be registered at the relevant point of time. Registered Special Power of Attorneys were also executed on 28.12.2020 by the petitioners and the respondent No.6 in favour of the respondent No.5 (their mother) authorizing her to Register the Release Deed. The respondent No.5 executed a Registered Gift Deed in favour of the petitioner No.2 in respect of 27 Plots of land admeasuring 8 6883 Sq. Yards situated at Landmark Colony, Dayara Vilalge, Keesara Grampanchayat, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, on 28.12.2020. The husband of the petitioner No.1 was given land in the said Dayara Village through a Registered document.
16. The respondent No.5 entered appearance on behalf of the petitioners, the respondent No.6 as well as herself in O.S.No.674 of 2020 on 07.01.2021 and filed the Registered GPAs, SPAs and the Release Deed in Trial Court on 07.01.2021. The dispute was referred to the Lok Adalat. The respondent No.4 claims that the impugned Award was also passed on that date i.e., 07.01.2021 and that the petitioners and the respondent No.6 were represented by the respondent No.5 as the Registered GPA- holder. The respondent No.4/plaintiff thereafter approached the Revenue Authorities and thereafter, the High Court for deletion of name of Bhoodan Board in the Revenue records and for entering the name of the respondent No.4. An un-dated order was passed by the District Collector in December, 2022 recommending transfer of land from Notional Khata (Bhoodan) to Patta in the name of the respondent No.4. On 04.07.2023 and 13.10.2023, the High Court directed the Tahsildar to implement the order of the District Collector and the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration to consider the case of the petitioner as per the order of the District Collector, respectively. Both these orders were passed in an I.A.No.1 of 2023 and C.C.No.1651 of 2023 of the Writ Petition (W.P.No.17049 of 2023) filed by the respondent No.4. 9
17. The petitioners claim that they came to know about the respondent No.4 portraying himself to be the absolute owner of the property in February, 2024 and that the respondent No.4 applied for Mutation of the said property. The petitioners say that they also came to know of the impugned Lok Adalat Award around that time.
18. The present Writ Petition was filed on 22.03.2024 challenging the un-dated Lok Adalat Award on the ground of fraud on the part of the respondent No.4 in obtaining the said Award behind the back of the petitioners and also on the breach of principles of natural justice and the violation of the provisions of the 1987 Act. The petitioners were granted interim protection on 27.03.2024 and the respondent No.4 applied for vacating the interim order on 29.04.2024.
19. It is undisputed that the impugned Lok Adalat Award is an un- dated Award. The impugned Award was passed in the Suit filed by the respondent No.4 for Partition and Separate possession against the defendants. The petitioners were the defendant Nos.3-4 in the said Suit. The Award records that the plaintiff and the defendants have resolved their dispute as per their understanding. The recorded understanding, which forms part of the impugned Award, is set out below:
"1. All defendants have mutually agreed to give their respective 1/5th share of land, which is Ac.02-19 gts of land per defendant in the Suit Schedule Property in favour of the Plaintiff.
2. The Plaintiff had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20,30,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty Thousand Only) for each defendant and the same 10 has been paid to Defendants and same was acknowledged in the Regd. Special Power of Attorneys.
3. All defendants herein have already signed the Release Deed in favour of the Plaintiff, by way of relinquishing their respective shares in the Schedule of Property.
4. All defendants have mutually agreed that they have NO OBJECTION in mutating the name of Plaintiff in the Revenue Records in place of K. Tirupathaiah over the schedule property to total extent.
5. All the Defendants have No Objection in Awarding the Suit in favour of the Plaintiff without costs."
20. It would be evident from the above that the Release Deed which was signed by the defendants in favour of the respondent No.4/plaintiff formed the primary reason for the Lok Adalat to pass the impugned Award. Therefore, it is necessary to dwell on the legality of the Release Deed for the purpose of the present adjudication.
21. The Release Deed, being an unregistered document, would hence attract the statutory bar under the provisions of The Registration Act, 1908 ('the 1908 Act') with regard to affecting the rights of petitioners/defendants. Section 17 of the 1908 Act enumerates the documents which require compulsory registration. Section 17(1)(b) mandates registration of non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, valued at one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property.
11
22. Section 17(1)(b) of the 1908 Act should be read with section 49 of the said Act which sets out the consequence of non-registration of documents which require mandatory registration under the former. Section 49 of the Act specifically stipulates that no document required by under section 17 to be registered shall as mentioned in section 49(a) of the Act, affect any immovable property comprised therein, unless it has been registered. The proviso to section 49 makes an exception for an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the transfer of property Act, 1882, to be registered to the extent of being received in evidence of a contract in a Suit for specific performance under Chapter II of The Specific Relief Act or as evidence of any collateral transaction which is not required to be effected by the registered instrument.
23. The proviso/exception to the effect of non-registration under section 49 of the Act would not apply to the facts of the present case since, admittedly, the unregistered Release Deed cannot be treated as a collateral transaction in the Suit filed by the respondent No.4 was for Partition and Separate Possession and that the said Release Deed was required to be received as evidence of any collateral transaction.
24. The Understanding recorded in the impugned Award treats the Release Deed as the basis of the petitioners (defendants in the Suit) relinquishing their rights in the subject property in favour of the respondent No.4 (plaintiff). The Supreme Court in Yellapu Uma 12 Maheswari & Anr. V. Buddha Jagadheeswara Rao & Ors 1: there is a Relinquishment of right in respect of the immovable property through a document which is compulsorily registrable becomes an inadmissible document under section 49 of the Act and the documents which squarely fall within the ambit of section 17(1)(b) of the 1908 Act and are compulsorily registrable documents and the same are inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the factum of partition between the parties and hence considered that those documents are not admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving primary purpose of partition.
25. Although, the respondents contend that the Release Deed could not be registered by reason of the pending proceedings for deletion of Notional Khata (Bhoodan) land to patta land, it is relevant that no attempt was made to register the Release Deed from 2020-2023 or even thereafter. The present Writ Petition was filed in 2024. Non-registration of such a vital document by which the petitioners (as defendants) relinquished all their rights in the Suit property in favour of the respondent No.4 raises a cloud of suspicion on the understanding arrived at between the parties. The aforesaid circumstances are compounded by several other unexplained factors:
(a) The impugned Award does not bear a date. The award is only signed by (i) the respondent No.4/plaintiff and his counsel, (ii) the 1 (2015) 16 SCC 787 13 respondent No.5 as the mother (iii) the GPA-holder of the defendant Nos.3-4 (petitioners herein), and (iv) counsel for the defendants.
(b) Although, it is been argued that both the petitioners executed GPAs in favour of the respondent No.5 authorizing her to deal with their 1/5th undivided share of the property, the GPA was admittedly executed solely for managing the property in the petitioners' best interest. This means that any power to Compromise could only be for the purpose of safeguarding the petitioners' interests as opposed to divesting them of their rights in the suit schedule property.
(c) The manner in which the GPA was used by the respondent No.5 belies the trust reposed by the petitioners in favour of the respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 entered appearance in the Suit, filed a Joint Memo and represented the petitioners even before service of notice to the petitioners (defendants in the Suit). This raises the presumption that the petitioners were not given any opportunity to contest the Suit or oppose the proceedings. The Compromise recorded in the absence of petitioners or their signatures on the Compromise hence aggravates the scenario.
(d) The respondent No.4/respondent No.5/GPA-holder also filed a Joint Memo in the Trial Court on 07.01.2021 for referring the Suit to the Lok Adalat for recording the Compromise between the plaintiff and the defendants. Soon after, the respondent No.4 filed an affidavit for advancing the date of hearing of the Suit from 25.01.2021 to 21.12.2020 for recording the Compromise between the plaintiff and the defendants. A 14 docket order was passed by the Trial Court on 07.01.2021 allowing the application for advancement and referring the matter to the Lok Adalat.
(e) Incidentally, the same docket order records that the parties have settled the matter before the Lok Adalat and an Award is passed in terms of a Mutual Settlement. A comparison of the dates would also show that the Joint Memo between the respondent No.4 and the respondent No.5 could not have been filed on 07.01.2020 since the respondent No.4's affidavit is of 21.12.2020 and the docket order was passed on 07.01.2021.
(f) It is crucial that the respondent No.5 filed a Joint Memo for advancement of the hearing for the purpose of recording the Compromise even before notices in the Suit were served to the petitioners. The notices were served only on 23.01.2021 and the same were returned unserved.
Therefore, the conduct of the respondent No.5 as the GPA-holder of the petitioners does not pass muster at several levels, including that of not representing the petitioners' best interest. The respondent No.5 also displayed unusual haste in seeking to relinquish the petitioners' rights in the Suit property even before service of notice to the petitioners.
26. The impugned Lok Adalat Award suffers from several other infirmities. Apart from being un-dated and passed without the signatures of all the parties before it, the docket order dated 07.01.2021 further emasculates the Award. On 07.01.2021, the Trial Court (i) allowed the prayer for advancement, (ii) advanced the date of hearing to 07.01.2021, 15
(iii) referred the matter to the Lok Adalat, (iv) recorded that the parties have settled the matter before the Lok Adalat, (v) recorded that an Award is passed in terms of a Mutual Settlement and (vi) returned all the unmarked documents to the plaintiffs on a Memo. The Trial Court completes all of the aforesaid on the same day which is contrary to the 1987 Act.
27. Section 20 of the 1987 Act provides the sequence of cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. Sections 20 (1), (2), (3) and (4) lays down the sequence from the parties applying to the Court for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for Settlement, the Lok Adalat proceeding to dispose the case and arrive at a Compromise or Settlement between the parties, passing of the Award and return of the case to the Court.
28. It is settled law that a separate order must be passed by the Lok Adalat recording the Compromise between the parties before passing the Award. The Lok Adalat recording the Compromise should ascertain if the parties are present personally and also undertake to verify their identities by the production of suitable documentary proof. Even if the parties are represented by their Attorney, the Lok Adalat to ascertain that the concerned party has been served with notice. It is only to be expected that a Lok Adalat would always have to be suspicious if a party enters appearance even before service of notice. The Lok Adalat should always ensure that the parties entering into a Compromise are represented and 16 obtain signatures on the Compromise rather than the power of attorney:
Renuka v. Ramanand and Ors 2.
29. The necessity of passing of the Lok Adalat Award under the provisions of the 1987 Act was noticed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a Writ Petition (W.P.No.12130 of 2005): D. Pochaiah v. The Chairman, Lok Adalat 3.
30. The sole premise of the respondent No.4/plaintiff is suppression of facts by the petitioners of the Registered Gift Deed executed in favour of the petitioner No.2 and the husband of the petitioner No.1. The contention is that the petitioners cannot challenge the impugned Award after having received consideration in exchange of giving up their rights to the Suit property and after having executed Registered GPAs in favour of the respondent No.5 as well as the Release Deed dated 28.12.2020. The respondents argue that there is a presumption of validity of the registered documents by reason of the GPAs and SPAs being registered. The stand taken on behalf of the respondents is contrary to the statute i.e., the 1987 Act which places emphasis on a Settlement Agreement under section 22(E) of the Act.
31. It is also of relevance that the certified copy of the Lok Adalat Award obtained by the petitioners does not contain a date, whereas the certified 2 MANU/KA/1630/2022 3 W.P.No.12130 of 2005 17 copy of the same Award given to the respondents bears the date 07.01.2021. Needless to say, a certified copy is prepared by reproducing the original document and authenticating the copy after comparing it with the original. The discrepancy between the certified copies of the Award is hence striking and affects the authenticity of the record itself.
32. We have already expressed our views with regard to the GPAs with reference to the conduct of the respondent No.5/GPA-holder and the invalidity of the unregistered Release Deed. We have also opined on the anomalies and the inconsistencies of the advancement petitions and the docket order passed by the Court which itself is contrary to section 20 of the 1987 Act. Hence, we do not find any substance in the argument of presumption of validity of the unregistered documents. We do not wish to go into the question of whether the petitioners received the amount of Rs.20,30,000/- each for giving up their rights on the schedule property since that is beyond the contemplation of the present Writ Petition where the only question is whether the Lok Adalat Award calls for interference.
33. The respondents' contention of delay and latches is equally untenable since the argument of Article 59 of the Schedule to the 1963 Act deals with cancellation/setting aside of an instrument, decree or for rescission of a contract with three years from the date of knowledge. In the present case, the challenge is to an un-dated Lok Adalat Award. The petitioners have, in any event, pleaded knowledge of the impugned Award from January/March 2024.
18
34. Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University 4 dealt with a judgment pronounced in open Court. The Supreme Court held that a judgment dictated in open Court becomes operative even without the signature of the learned Judge and could not be altered. This has no application to the Lok Adalat Award which has been challenged in the present case. In K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority 5 and M.S. Sanjay v. India Bank 6, reiterated that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and requires the petitioner to approach the Court with clean hands without concealing the relevant facts within his knowledge.
35. We do not find any suppression on behalf of the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners were deprived of an opportunity to contest the Suit since they were under a bona fide belief that their mother/respondent No.5 would protect their best interests. Unfortunately, this did not happen. The very fact that the notices served to the petitioners were returned much after the respondent No.5 joined the respondent No.4 in expediting the hearing of the Suit and recording the compromise between the parties shows that the petitioners' right to a fair hearing was violated. 4 (1988) 1 SCC 80 5 (2022) 12 SCC 815 6 2025 INSC 177 19
36. We thus find that the petitioners have approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with substantial grounds for challenging the impugned Lok Adalat Award. Apart from the Award itself raising several questions, the Release Deed is contrary to the 1908 Act and the conduct of the GPA-holder/respondent No.5 is suspicious. The manner in which the hearing in the Suit filed by the respondent No.4 was expedited, referred to the Lok Adalat, and disposed of by way of the impugned Award in great haste also casts a shadow on the legality of the impugned Award. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to the relief prayed for.
37. The above discussion gives our reasons for treating the Lok Adalat Award as procedurally deficient and warranting interference.
38. W.P.No.7968 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of by setting aside the un-dated Lok Adalat Award passed in O.S.No.674 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kushaiguda at Kushaiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri.
39. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J _____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J DATE: 30.10.2025 NDS