The Telangana High Court has dismissed a challenge by the children of a deceased property owner to a Lok Adalat award settling a long-running dispute over land in the Alwal Municipality area of Medchal-Malkajgiri district, holding that children born years after a transaction cannot challenge it merely because they did not consent to it.
A Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara rejected the petition filed against the award, finding that the allegations of fraud, invalid signatures and the invalidity of the underlying transaction were not supported by evidence. The case concerned property linked to B. Saipal Reddy, who had entered into an agreement concerning the property in 1973 and later executed an agreement of sale in favour of Narsing Rao and Kalyan Chakravarthy on June 1, 1988.
The purchasers had paid the consideration, but the sale deed was not registered. The dispute was eventually taken to the Lok Adalat, where the parties recorded a compromise and an award was passed. Saipal Reddy died on November 18, 2020. His children later approached the High Court, alleging that their father had been a minor when he received consideration under the 1973 transaction, that he had not signed the compromise memo and that the Lok Adalat award had been obtained through fraud.
The petitioners also questioned the genuineness of Saipal Reddy’s signatures on the agreement of sale, power of attorney, written statement and compromise memo. Counsel for the purchasers argued that Saipal Reddy had executed the agreement and received the full consideration, which he had acknowledged during court proceedings.
The Bench noted that Saipal Reddy remained alive for nearly one year and eight months after the Lok Adalat award, but neither he nor his wife objected to the settlement. The court also observed that the petitioners were 15 and seven years old when the award was passed and did not raise an objection subsequently. The allegations of fraud were not supported by material evidence, and no evidence was produced to substantiate the claim that Saipal Reddy was a minor when the 1973 agreement was entered into.
The court specifically referred to the age of one petitioner, Jahnavi, who was born on November 4, 2003, nearly 15 years after the 1988 agreement of sale. It held that her claim that the transaction was invalid for want of her consent had no basis.
The Bench reiterated that an award passed by a Lok Adalat has finality and is treated as a decree. It also noted, while referring to Supreme Court law, that such an award can be challenged before a High Court through its constitutional jurisdiction. However, the court found the present writ petition devoid of merit and dismissed it along with the interim applications.
Although the court observed that the case warranted the imposition of costs on the petitioners, it refrained from doing so. The ruling leaves the Lok Adalat settlement undisturbed.
