Sister Bound By Signed Lok Adalat Deal Releasing Property To Her Sister Despite Saying She Did Not Understand English: Karnataka HC

The appellant and respondent No. 1 were co-plaintiffs in a suit concerning three properties.

A Lok Adalat compromise award provided, among other things, that they could retain or sell item No. 2; if retained, they were to pay respondent No. 2 (the decree-holder) ₹17,25,000.

In execution proceedings, the parties submitted a joint memo providing for payments to the decree-holder, delivery of vacant possession, and execution of a registered release deed in favour of respondent No. 1.

The Lok Adalat accepted the memo on 8 March 2025.

The appellant challenged that order, contending that the memo was inconsistent with the decree and that she had not understood it because it was in English.

The Single Judge dismissed her writ petition, and she appealed.

The Court referred to the compromise award made under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which set out the parties’ rights and obligations concerning the properties.

It applied the principle that an agreed arrangement in execution proceedings may be acted upon where it concerns enforcement of the decree-holder’s entitlement under the decree and falls within the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat.

The Court also treated a joint memo admittedly signed by a party as binding in the circumstances of this case.

The award permitted the plaintiffs to retain item No. 2 by paying the decree-holder ₹17,25,000.

The joint memo reflected their decision to retain the property and addressed payment of the amount and release of the property in favour of respondent No. 1.

The Court therefore regarded the memo as concerning enforcement of the decree-holder’s monetary claim, rather than as an arrangement beyond the Lok Adalat’s jurisdiction.

It further held the appellant bound by the memo because she had admittedly signed it; it found no error in the Single Judge’s rejection of her challenge.

It held that the joint memo fell within the Lok Adalat’s jurisdiction in the execution proceedings and that the appellant was bound by the memo she had signed.

The writ appeal was dismissed, and the pending applications were disposed of.