Children born after property deal cannot challenge transaction for lack of consent: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has held that children born years after a property transaction cannot challenge it merely for lack of consent. The court dismissed a plea against a Lok Adalat award, finding no evidence of fraud or invalidity.

Legal Correspondent

Hyderabad: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court have held that children born years after a property transaction cannot challenge it merely on the ground that they had not consented to the transaction. The Bench dismissed a petition filed by the children of a deceased property owner challenging a Lok Adalat award settling a long-standing dispute over the property.

---

The dispute relates to property in the Alwal Municipality area of Medchal-Malkajgiri district. B. Saipal Reddy had entered into an agreement concerning the property in 1973 and subsequently executed an agreement of sale in favour of Narsing Rao and Kalyan Chakravarthy on June 1, 1988. Though the purchasers had paid the consideration, the sale deed could not be registered, leading to a dispute between the parties.

The dispute was eventually settled before the Lok Adalat and an award was passed recording the compromise. Saipal Reddy died on November 18, 2020. His children later approached the High Court challenging the award, alleging that their father was a minor when he received the consideration under the 1973 transaction, that he had not signed the compromise memo and that the Lok Adalat award had been obtained by fraud.

The petitioners also questioned the genuineness of Saipal Reddy’s signatures on various documents, including the agreement of sale, GPA, written statement and compromise memo. Senior counsel appearing for the purchasers contended that Saipal Reddy had executed the agreement and received the entire consideration, which was also acknowledged by him in the proceedings before the court. 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 raised any objection to the settlement.

The petitioners, who were only 15 and seven years old when the award was passed, also did not raise any objection subsequently. The Court further observed that no material was produced to substantiate the allegation of fraud or to show that any objection had been raised against the advocate who was alleged to have procured the disputed signature.

The Bench found that Saipal Reddy’s being a major at the relevant time was not in dispute and that the claim that he was a minor when the 1973 agreement was entered into was not established by any evidence. It also pointed out that one of the petitioners, Jahnavi, was born on November 4, 2003, nearly 15 years after the agreement of sale, and therefore her contention that the transaction was invalid for want of her consent had no basis.

The Court reiterated that an award passed by a Lok Adalat has finality and is deemed to be a decree. Referring to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Bench observed that a challenge to such an award can be maintained before the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Holding that the writ petition was devoid of merit, the Bench dismissed it along with the interim applications. Though the Court observed that the case warranted imposition of costs on the petitioners, it refrained from doing so.