Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Popuri Venkata Rathaiah vs Popuri Sambrajyam on 9 May, 2025
APHC010425362019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3740/2019
Between:
Popuri Venkata Rathaiah ...PETITIONER
AND
Popuri Sambrajyam ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K J V N PUNDAREEKAKSHUDU
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. M CHALAPATI RAO
The Court made the following:
2
Dr.VRKS,J
CRP.No.3740 of 2019
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3740 of 2019
ORDER:
1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the CPC,
is filed by the petitioner/ Judgment debtor impugning the order
dated 26.11.2019 in E.P.No.15 of 2019 in O.S.No.47 of 2013 on
the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Parchur.
2. Heard arguments of Sri K.J.V.N.Pundareekakshudu, the
learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri M.Chalapati Rao,
the learned counsel for DHr/respondent.
3. At the outset, the following facts are required to be noticed:-
O.S.No.47 of 2013 was a suit filed by Smt. P.Sambrajaym
against Sri P.Venkata Rathaiah. The suit was filed before learned
Senior Civil Judge, Parchur. Plaint is annexed with a schedule
containing item Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 immovable properties. The
prayer in the suit reads as below: –
“The plaintiff prays the Hon’ble court may be pleased
to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant:
a) Declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint
schedule properties and for consequential possession,
b) Future mesne profits,
c) Costs of the suit and
d) Pass such other and further orders in the interest
of justice.”
3
Dr.VRKS,J
CRP.No.3740 of 2019
4. Defendant therein filed a written statement and disputed
the claim made in the plaint and prayed for the dismissal of the
suit. During the pendency of the suit, it was at the behest of the
parties, the trial court referred the matter to Lok Adalath. On
17.11.2018 parties arrived at a settlement and filed terms of
compromise with free will and volition. Acting upon that, the Lok
Adalath passed the award which reads as below.
1.The defendant agreed to discharge the mortgage
loan to PDCC bank Martur and clear off all other liabilities if
any of or before 28-02-2019 and he agreed to execute
Regd. Settlement deed to an extent of Ac.0.80 cents
including canal in Sy.No. 189/2 of Ananthavaram village out
of Ac.2-04 cents land (Ac.1.04 cents of item No.1 of the
plaint schedule and another Ac.1-00 cents land of the
defendant and in total Ac.2.04 cents land as single plot) to
the plaintiff towards her full and final settlement of her claim
in the suit. The said land of Ac.0.80 cents is bounded by
East: Remaining land of Defendant, South: Popuri
Koteswara Rao, West: Remaining land of the defendant
and North: Addanki Nageswara Rao.
2. The defendant agreed to pay Rs.8000/-(Rupees
Eight Thousand Only) the plaintiff towards full and final
settlement of mesne profits and the defendant shall pay the
same on or before 28-02-2019.
3. In case, the defendant failed to fulfil the above
terms No.1 and 2 within stipulated time i.e., on or before
28-02-2019, the plaintiff and defendant agreed that the
plaintiff is an absolute owner of the Plaint schedule
properties and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the
possession of the properties and the defendant agreed to
deliver the plaint schedule properties on or before 31-03-
2019 and in default the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the
4
Dr.VRKS,J
CRP.No.3740 of 2019
possession of the plaint schedule properties through
process of law.
4. The plaintiff is entitled mesne profits from the date
of suit till the delivery of possession according to law.
5. In case, the defendant will fulfil the above terms
no.1 and 2, and the plaintiff herewith given up her
remaining claim in the suit and future mesne profits and
other maintenance “claims of the plaintiff under the decree
in O.S.NO.663/2005 DT.12-10-2007 on the file of
P.J.C.J.Court, Tenali and Appeal Decree in A.S.99/2007
dt.15-03-2010 on the file of P.S.C.J.Court, Tenali.”
6. The parties agreed to bear their own costs. Plaint
schedule is attached to the Award. Accordingly, Award is
passed.”
5. An award of Lok Adalath shall be deemed to be decree of
civil court. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority, 1987 reads
as below:
21. Award of Lok Adalat.– (1) Every award of the
Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court
or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and
where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by
a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section(1) of
section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be
refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act,
1870 (7 of 1870).]
(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final
and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal
shall lie to any court against the award
6. Alleging that, JDr/ Sri P.Venkata Rathaiah failed to comply
with clause Nos.1,2 and 3 of the Lok Adalath award within the
timelines prescribed therein, the outer limit of which was
5
Dr.VRKS,J
CRP.No.3740 of 2019
31.03.2019, the DHr/ Smt. P.Sambrajyam filed E.P.No.15 of 2019
on 23.04.2019 with a prayer to deliver possession of decree/ Lok
Adalath award schedule mentioned properties consisting of four
items of immovable properties.
7. Order 21 Rule 35 CPC reads as below: –
35. Decree for immovable property–(1) Where a
decree is for the delivery of any immovable property,
possession thereof shall be delivered to the party to whom
it has been adjudged, or to such person as he may appoint
to receive delivery on his behalf, and, if necessary, by
removing any person bound by the decree who refuses to
vacate the property.
(2) Where a decree is for the joint possession of
immovable property, such possession shall be delivered by
affixing a copy of the warrant in some conspicuous place
on the property and proclaiming by beat of drum, or other
customary mode, at some convenient place, the substance
of the decree.
(3) Where possession of any building on enclosure is
to be delivered and the person in possession, being bound
by the decree, does not afford free access, the Court,
through its officers, may, after giving reasonable warning
and facility to any woman not appearing in public according
to the customs of the country to withdraw, remove or open
any lock or bolt or break open any door or do any other act
necessary for putting the decree-holder in possession.
8. JDr/Sri P.Venkata Rathaiah filed his counter. The learned
execution court conducted an enquiry during which time, both
parties did not adduce any evidence. After considering the
material on record and after considering the submissions made
on both sides, the executing court passed an order dated
6
Dr.VRKS,J
CRP.No.3740 of 2019
26.11.2019 directing for delivery of item Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of
decree/ Lok Adalath award schedule properties to DHr/
Smt.P.Samrajyam and put her in possession of those properties.
9. It is the above order which is assailed by JDr/Sri P.Venkata
Rathaiah in this revision.
10. The contention that was raised before the court below is
the contention that is also raised here. Learned counsel for
revision petitioner/JDr contended that respondent/DHr had no
cause of action to pray for delivery of possession of item Nos.1,
2, 3 and 4 decree/Lok Adalath award schedule mentioned
properties since respondent/ DHr did not serve any notice
demanding the revision petitioner/ JDr to register item Nos.1 and
2 of EP schedule properties in her name. Only if there was refusal
on part of revision petitioner /JDr to register item 1 and 2 of the
properties, it is only then the DHr/respondent was entitled to ask
for delivery of item Nos.1 to 4 of the properties. The prayer in the
EP suffers from mala fides. No evidence was brought on record
by DHr showing any refusal on part of JDr in complying with the
Lok Adalath award. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
for revision petitioner cited U.N.Krishnamurthy Vs
7
Dr.VRKS,J
CRP.No.3740 of 2019
A.M.Krishnamurthy1. For the above reasons, the learned
counsel prays for setting aside the impugned order of the court
below.
11. As against that, the learned counsel for respondent/ DHr
submits that pursuant to the order of the executing court, item
Nos.1 and 2 of the immovable properties were already delivered
and the delivery remained unexecuted so far as item Nos.3 and 4
of schedule properties. That the contentions raised by revision
petitioner/ JDr are erroneous on facts and law and the ruling cited
has no relevance to the case at hand. The learned counsel
argued that the impugned order of the execution court was made
on 26.11.2019. Earlier this very revision petitioner raised certain
objections, and the execution court passed certain orders on
08.07.2019 and 04.09.2019 and challenging them, the revision
petitioner/JDr herein preferred C.R.P.No.3635 of 2019 and this
court by an order dated 26.06.2023 dismissed the revision. In the
above backdrop, the learned counsel suggests that JDr/revision
petitioner has been squatting on the property unreasonably and
raising contentions that have no legal basis and prays for
dismissal of the revision.
1
(2023) 11 SCC 775
8
Dr.VRKS,J
CRP.No.3740 of 2019
12. The following point falls for consideration :
Whether the impugned order suffers from
illegality or material irregularity requiring interference?
POINT: –
13. It is undisputed that the Lok Adalath award attained its
finality. Parties to the award are bound by the terms incorporated
in the award. The terms of the award are already noticed in the
earlier paragraphs of this order. It directed JDr to execute a
registered settlement deed in favour of DHr on or before
28.02.2019 vide clause No.1 of the award. It further directed that
defendant/JDr to pay Rs.8,000/- towards profits to DHr/plaintiff on
or before 28.02.2019 vide clause No.2 of the award.
14. On facts, it is undisputed that the revision petitioner/JDr
neither paid that amount of money nor executed such registered
settlement deed. Here lies the crux of the contentions raised in
this revision.
15. Learned counsel for revision petitioner contends that the
DHr/respondent herein did not issue any notice demanding him to
execute such registered settlement deed and did not demand
9
Dr.VRKS,J
CRP.No.3740 of 2019
payment of Rs.8,000/- towards profits and in the light of such
omission and failure, there was no cause of action for
DHr/respondent in praying for delivery of items 1 to 4 of the
schedule mentioned properties. This contention is attempted to
be supported citing the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in U.N. Krishnamurthy‘s case referred earlier. The
contention is misconceived and cannot be countenanced for the
following reasons.
16. The award of Lok Adalath is culmination of a non
adjudicatory process. Parties are persuaded by members of Lok
Adalath to arrive at mutual compromise. Lok Adalath award sets
out terms of such compromise. Clause Nos.1 and 2 of the award
disclosed that this revision petitioner/defendant/JDr had taken
upon himself the duty to clear off the loans and execute
registered settlement deed in favour of respondent/plaintiff/DHr.
He further took upon his shoulders to pay Rs.8,000/- towards
settlement of mesne profits. These two clauses have not put any
condition on DHr/plaintiff to issue any notices raising a demand
against JDr/defendant to comply with the terms of the award. It is
undisputed that the revision petitioner/JDr did not issue any
notice to DHR calling upon her to know that he had paid and
10
Dr.VRKS,J
CRP.No.3740 of 2019
discharged the debts that are mentioned in clause 1 of the award
and asking her to participate and receive a registered settlement
deed as mentioned in the award. The contention of the revision
petitioner that he met the DHr on several occasions, but she did
not cooperate has no legal basis since in such instance, he could
very well have moved the execution court in that regard. His utter
failure in complying with these terms of the Lok Adalath award is
taken by him as basis for him to contend that the burden is on the
opposite party and not on him. It seems he believes his default is
his strength. In the cited ruling, the case before their Lordships
was a suit for specific performance. The concept of readiness and
willingness was a matter of immense significance in such suits. In
that context, their Lordships had reiterated that the
plaintiff/intending purchaser filing a suit for specific performance
of an agreement for sale is obliged to aver in the plaint and prove
by evidence his or her readiness and willingness to perform the
obligation to pay money in terms of the contract and would have
to make specific averment in that regard in the plaint as well as in
his evidence and demonstrate before the court about availability
of funds to make the payments in terms of contract within the time
prescribed in the contract/ agreement for sale. If the plaintiff in
11
Dr.VRKS,J
CRP.No.3740 of 2019
such cases fails to discharge those obligations, he could not be
granted decree of specific performance. This ruling does not
advance the cause of revision petitioner for the following reasons.
17. An agreement for sale by their very terms contain mutual
obligations on parties to the contract. An award of Lok Adalath is
a matter of authority of law and has to be complied with by both
parties. In the case at hand, the Lok Adalath award does not cast
any obligations on part of DHr/plaintiff to pay money to
JDr/revision petitioner. Learned counsel for revision petitioner is
unable to show from the terms of the award any obligations cast
on respondent/plaintiff/DHr to be fulfilled. Therefore, the
contention of JDr/ revision petitioner is negatived.
18. Since clause Nos.1 and 2 of the Lok Adalath were not
complied with by the revision petitioner/ JDr the terms of the
award in clause Nos.3 to 6 come into operation. Learned court
below rightly considered these facts and ordered for delivery of
possession of item Nos.1 to 4 of schedule properties. The
executing court exercised the jurisdiction vested with it and it did
not exceed its jurisdiction, and the order passed is in accordance
with the facts and applicable law. The impugned order does not
12
Dr.VRKS,J
CRP.No.3740 of 2019
call for interference. There are no merits in this revision. Hence,
point is answered against the revision petitioner.
19. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. order
dated 26.11.2019 in E.P.No.15 of 2019 in O.S.No.47 of 2013 on
the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Parchur is confirmed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 01.05.2025
Dvs
13
Dr.VRKS,J
CRP.No.3740 of 2019
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3740 of 2019
Date: 01.05.2025
Dvs