Madras High Court
Civil Procedure and EvidenceAdministrative and Public Law

A Lok Adalat award procured by concealing existing third-party rights is liable to be set aside.

KANAGAMANI vs SELVARAJ (DECEASED) 1. Mylathal,

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 09, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A Lok Adalat award procured by concealing existing third-party rights is liable to be set aside.. KANAGAMANI vs SELVARAJ (DECEASED)  1. Mylathal,. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

Selvaraj filed O.S. No. 610 of 2020 seeking partition of the suit properties.

Source reference: no citation

After his death, his mother was transposed as plaintiff.

Source reference: no citation

The parties entered into a compromise before the Lok Adalat, which passed an award on 18 February 2022; the award was registered as Document No. 2368 of 2022 on 7 March 2022.

Source reference: p. 4

The revision petitioners claimed rights in the properties and alleged that the suit and compromise concealed prior dealings and transfers to third parties, whose rights were thereby affected without their participation.

Source reference: pp. 4–6

They challenged the award under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Source reference: p. 4
02

Issues

Whether the revisions under Article 227 were maintainable to challenge the Lok Adalat award.

Source reference: p. 4

Whether the award should be set aside on the ground that the compromise was obtained through a collusive suit that concealed existing third-party rights.

Source reference: pp. 4–6

Whether the suit should be remitted for further proceedings, and on what terms.

Source reference: pp. 6–7
03

Law Applied

The Court stated that a Lok Adalat award may be challenged only by a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, relying on Dilip Mehta v. Rakesh Gupta and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2737.

Source reference: p. 4

The judgment identifies no further statutory provision or legal test; it proceeds on the principle that an award procured through fraud or concealment of material facts, in circumstances affecting existing third-party rights, cannot stand.

Source reference: pp. 5–6
04

Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioners had placed overwhelming material showing that the suit properties had already been dealt with and that third-party rights had arisen before the compromise.

Source reference: pp. 5–6

The contesting respondents provided no explanation for compromising the suit without addressing those rights, and their counsel indicated that they had no further instructions.

Source reference: pp. 5–6

In those circumstances, the Court held the award and its registration illegal and non est.

Source reference: pp. 6–7

It also concluded that any continuation of the suit required the participation of all necessary parties.

Source reference: pp. 6–7
05

Holding

The Court allowed all three revisions and set aside the Lok Adalat award dated 18 February 2022 and its registration as Document No. 2368 of 2022.

The Court remitted O.S. No. 610 of 2020 to the IV Additional District Court, Coimbatore.

Source reference: pp. 6–7

Any party wishing to contest the suit must take steps to implead all necessary parties within eight weeks of receiving the order; otherwise, the trial court must close the suit for non-prosecution.

Source reference: pp. 6–7

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Source reference: p. 7
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

KANAGAMANIvsSELVARAJ (DECEASED) 1. Mylathal,

Madras High Court · October 09, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment