Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The learned Counsel for the respondents further contended that the award of the Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Since it is a decree, the respondent landlord is entitled to execute the same.

12. The learned Counsel for the respondents further contended that the suit was referred to Lok Adalat only at the instance of both the parties. Both the parties have mutually agreed relating to the terms of compromise. The petitioner is running a prestigious Engineering College and he is being assisted by able Advocate. Only after a long discussion, this compromise was arrived at and hence, the contention of the petitioner that he was kept in dark, is only an after thought and not legally sustainable. The learned Counsel for the respondents had further contended that the award of the Lok Adalat should only be construed to be a compromise decree. Only when the agreement or compromise is not lawful, the Court is not bound to record the compromise. As per explanation to Order 23, Rule 3, an agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act shall https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule. In such circumstances, unless the petitioner proves that the compromise is vitiated by anyone of the grounds found in Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, a compromise decree cannot be set aside. In the present case, the petitioner was aware of his legal status and he has voluntarily entered into a compromise to hand over the possession in a period of three months. Incase, if he did not vacate the premises, the landlord was given right to execute the decree. Only after being satisfied with the genuineness and the voluntariness of the compromise memo, the Lok Adalat recorded the said compromise. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Whether the defendant can execute a compromise decree?

31. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the landlord being a defendant in the suit, a decree cannot be passed in his favour. Even if a decree is passed, the same cannot be executed without there being a counter claim on the side of the defendant. Though it may not be a relevant factor for deciding the writ petition, this Court is constrained to consider the same in view of the submissions.