1 APHC010488092024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 25364/2024 Between: Valiveti Sambrajym and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D BALAKRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KRISHNA KISHORE V.H.V 2. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY (SC FOR APSLSA) 3. V VIJAYA VARDHAN 4. GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioners herein and the respondents 4 to 9 are members of one family. The 10th respondent is the son of the 9th respondent. On account of disputes between the members of this family, O.S.No.19 of 2009 came to be filed before the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, for partition of the property of the family. 2 2. During the course of this suit, all the parties had sought to record a compromise for resolving the disputes between themselves. Certain terms were arrived at and reduced to writing. The terms were reduced and produced before a Lok-Adalat constituted by the Mandal Legal Committee and an award, dated 19.07.2014, was recorded. 3. The memo of compromise as well as the award recorded certain properties would be belonging to the family and allotted these properties to various members of this family. The 9th respondent herein, according to the typewritten award was to be paid Rs.1,00,000/- as her share in an entire property and it was also stated that the said amount was paid. 4. The 9th respondent had subsequently filed O.S.Nos.343 & 345 of 2017, before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, for grant of permanent injunction in relation to the property prescribed as D.No.313/1, admeasuring of Ac.0.65 cents. This suit is said to have been filed on the basis of the award passed by the Lok-Adalat. The same was disputed by the other members of the family on the ground that the 9th respondent was entitled to only Rs.1,00,000/- whereas the award produced by respondents 9 & 10 showed that the typewritten amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is stuck off and the D.No.313/1 admeasuring of Ac.0.65 cents was handwritten, in the award. 5. The petitioners herein, who were the parties to O.S.No.19 of 2009, have approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition contending that the 10th respondent has altered the award which was in records of the Mandal Legal Committee and that the suits filed on the basis of 3 this altered award are not maintainable. The 10th respondent was initially represented by Sri Pamarthy Rathnakar, learned counsel. Learned counsel has informed us today that the 10th respondent has withdrawn vakalat from him. No other counsel is appearing for the 10th respondent today. The responsibility of appointing a counsel, upon withdrawing vakalat from another counsel, would rest solely on the client. The 10th respondent, being fully aware of the fact that the present Writ Petition is coming up today has chosen to withdraw vakalat, apparently for the purposes of prolonging this Writ Petition. We do not appreciate such conduct and hold that the 10th respondent has forfeited his right to defend the award. 6. This Court, with a view to ascertain the actual facts had summoned the original award available in the records of the Mandal Legal Committee. An award, said to be the original award, has now been placed before us. 7. A perusal of the award would show that the 9th respondent herein was entitled to payment of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as her share in the family property. However, the typewritten words therein have been stuck off and the property bearing D.No.313/1 admeasuring of Ac.0.65 cents was handwritten in the award. Any alternation or interpolation would require the parties to counter sign such alternation or interpolation. In the present case, there is no such counter signature of any party to certify that the alternations or interpolations were done with the concert of the parties. 4 8. Further, it would be difficult for this Court to ascertain as to whether such an interpolation was done and accepted by the parties even without their signatures. 9. In such circumstances, this Court holds that the award is tainted and cannot be relied upon by either side. 10. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the Lok-Adalat award, dated 19.07.2014, in Lok-Adalath Case No.164/2014 in O.S.No.19 of 2009, on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali. In view of the award being set aside, O.S.No.19 of 2009 would stand revived before the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. BSM 5 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.25364 of 2024 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 01.04.2025 BSM