Justice Nelson Sailo observed,
"Shri. K. Vanlalmalsawma during his lifetime did not inherit the land and property...If such is the case, there cannot be any basis for the petitioners to make a claim for the said property on the strength of being the daughters of late Shri. K. Vanlalmalsawma."
Brief Factual Background :
The petitioners are the granddaughters of one Shri K. Rochhinga (L) who was the original owner of the property in hand. The father of petitioners, i.e., Shri. K. Vanlalmalsawma (L) was allowed to live in the property until he expired on 06.05.2014. The property continued to remain in the name of the petitioners' grandfather.
Therefore, respondent no. 1 & 2 (brothers of petitioners' father) approached the Civil Judge with a Title Suit, claiming declaration to the said property and other properties left behind by late Shri. K. Vanlalmalsawma.
During the pendency of this Title Suit, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat and consequently, a settlement order was arrived at on 26.09.2015 by the parties concerned.
The petitioners of the instant writ petition were aggrieved by this settlement order of the Lok Adalat as it did not leave any share for the petitioners on the property left behind by their late father.
The respondents argued that a writ petition is not maintainable against a private person. Further, they argued that writ against the settlement order of a Lok Adalat is permissible only on limited grounds as decided by the Apex Court in State of Punjab & Anr. V. Jalour Singh & Ors.
The High Court found that the grounds mentioned in Jalour Singh (supra) are not attracted in this case since the order of the Lok Adalat was passed after a mutual settlement between the parties, and was signed by the parties concerned. Thereby, the Lok Adalat neither exceed its jurisdiction nor did it exercised the powers not vested in it.
"In the present case, it cannot be said that the Lok Adalat had exceeded its jurisdiction or had exercised the powers not vested in it, since an agreement/settlement was mutually arrived at and signed by the parties concerned. Therefore, I do not find this decision to be applicable to the case of the petitioners."
The High Court found no dispute to the fact that the petitioners were residing in the said property since the time their father was alive. Therefore, "they should be allowed to reside peacefully in the main house as long as they want to", the Court noted.
It further noted that even though the petitioners have tried to project that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have committed fraud or mis-represented them in respect of the properties left behind by their late father, however, the fact remains that the petitioners were also given their share of the money left behind by the late father.
"The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in their Title Suit also sought for a declaration of the properties left behind by late Shri. K. Vanlalmalsawma in their names. Therefore, it is not a case of fraud or misrepresentation as sought to be projected by the petitioners," it added.
Case Name : Ms Olivia Laldinmawii Khiangte & 2 Ors. v. K. Vanlaltluanga & 3 Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 18
Case No. WP(C) 85 of 2019
Judge : Justice Nelson Sailo
