Lok Adalat Award Cannot Override Registered Lease Deed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Execution Petition for Eviction

“Once Parties Enter Fresh Registered Lease, Execution of Prior Compromise Decree Is Not Maintainable” – In a significant ruling dealing with the execution of compromise decrees arising from Lok Adalat awards, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that once the parties enter into a fresh registered lease deed, the earlier Lok Adalat award—even if deemed a decree—is not automatically executable for eviction purposes. Instead, the remedy lies in filing a suit for eviction in accordance with law.

Justice K. Sujana affirmed the trial court’s finding that the compromise decree arising from the Lok Adalat had been worked out and stood superseded by the subsequent lease deed.

“Registered Lease Deed Supersedes Compromise Decree; Eviction Must Follow Due Process” – High Court Observes

The Court held:

“Although the Lok Adalat award is an executable decree, the parties must follow the procedure laid down by law, which in this case requires filing a suit for eviction. The terms of the lease deed and the Lok Adalat award clearly indicate that the due process of law for resolving disputes is through a suit for eviction, not an execution petition.” [Para 18]

This ruling comes in the context of a compromise reached in O.S. No. 1485 of 2002, where the petitioner (landlord/decree-holder) sought to evict the respondent (tenant/judgment debtor) by filing E.P. No. 216 of 2023, relying on the Lok Adalat award. However, the tenant argued that after the award, both parties had entered into a fresh registered lease deed for 15 years, effectively superseding the earlier compromise terms.

Fresh Lease Replaces Earlier Settlement

The dispute arose from an eviction suit filed by the petitioner’s predecessor, which was settled through a Lok Adalat award. The award stipulated that the respondent would vacate the premises by a particular date. However, post-award, the parties executed a registered lease deed with new terms and conditions for a fixed period.

When the landlord filed an execution petition based on the Lok Adalat decree, the tenant objected under Section 47 CPC, arguing that the decree had become inexecutable due to the subsequent contract, and that eviction could not be obtained through execution proceedings contrary to the terms of the registered lease.

The executing court accepted the tenant’s objections and dismissed the execution petition, prompting the decree-holder to file the present revision petition.

Executing Court Has Limited Jurisdiction – Cannot Override Subsequent Contracts

The High Court upheld the trial court’s reasoning and emphasized the limited scope of the executing court under Section 47 CPC:

“The scrutiny of a decree by the executing Court is limited to objections based on jurisdictional infirmity or voidness, and not on errors of law or fact, unless the decree is a nullity.” [Para 11]

“Section 47 CPC empowers the executing Court to determine all questions related to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree... However, the role of the executing Court is to enforce the decree in accordance with its terms, without reinterpreting or altering its substance.” [Para 15]

The Court noted that the fresh lease deed being a registered document had superseded the compromise decree and that execution cannot be sought in contravention of the lease.

Effect of Lok Adalat Award: Deemed Decree, But Not Immutable

While acknowledging the legal sanctity of Lok Adalat awards under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Court clarified:

“The award of Lok Adalat is final and permanent which is equivalent to a decree executable, and the same is an ending to the litigation among parties. However, execution must conform to subsequent binding contracts entered into by parties.” [Paras 11–13]

The Court reiterated that contracts, including those incorporated in decrees, cannot be altered or varied orally once a registered instrument exists, invoking Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

“The terms of a contract cannot be altered or modified by oral agreements or parol evidence, especially when the contract is a registered document.” [Para 13]

Due Process of Law Must Be Followed in Eviction

Reiterating the principle of settled possession, the Court held that even if a person’s right to occupy has ended, they cannot be dispossessed without due process of law:

“A person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except by a court of law, following due process. This is a fundamental principle of law...” [Para 14]

Thus, the landlord was directed to pursue the appropriate legal remedy by initiating an eviction suit, as opposed to seeking eviction through execution of a now-defunct decree.

The Court considered a long list of precedents from both the Supreme Court and High Courts, including:

• P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 478 – on the enforceability of Lok Adalat awards;
• K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji, (2012) 2 SCC 51 – reiterating that Lok Adalat awards are deemed decrees;
• Bibekananda Bhowal v. Satindra Mohan Deb, (1996) 9 SCC 292 – holding that where compromise decree contemplates eviction only through suit, execution is not maintainable;
• Sudhir Kumar v. Baldev Krishna Thapar, (1969) 3 SCC 611 – on the effect of fresh lease executed after compromise;
• S. Saktivel v. M. Venugopal Pillai, AIR 2000 SC 2463 – on the inadmissibility of oral evidence to vary registered documents under Section 92 of the Evidence Act.

Fresh Lease Supersedes Decree, Suit Required for Eviction

Summarising its findings, the High Court concluded:

“Reverting to the facts of the case on hand... this Court holds that the terms of the lease deed and the Lok Adalat award clearly indicate that the due process of law for resolving disputes is through a suit for eviction, not an execution petition.” [Para 18]

Thus, the revision petition was dismissed, and the trial court’s order rejecting the execution petition was upheld.

Date of Decision: 04.02.2025