Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging an Award dated 09.03.2019 passed by the Lok Adalat held before the Mandal Legal Services Committee at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District in Appeal Suit No.255 of 2017 filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein.

2. The respondents 2 and 3 are the appellants and the respondent No.4 is the sole respondent before the Lok Adalat. The writ petitioners were not parties before the Lok Adalat. The impugned Award records presence of both the parties before the Lok Adalat and that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and filed a Memorandum of Compromise. The terms of the Memorandum of Compromise were read and explained to both the parties. The parties admitted the terms and the compromise to be true and correct. The Lok Adalat hence proceeded to record the compromise and disposed of the Appeal Suit in terms of the Compromise.

3. The Memorandum of Compromise dated 09.03.2019 forms part of the record in the present Writ Petition. The Memorandum of Compromise bears the signatures of both the appellants (the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein) as well as the respondent (respondent No.2 herein) and also their counsel before the Lok Adalat.

4. The writ petitioners claim to be the daughter and minor son of the respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is stated that the first petitioner was aged about 20 years and the minor son was aged about 12 years as on the date of filing of the present Writ Petition i.e., 26.04.2024. According to the petitioners, they were neither parties to the Compromise before the Lok Adalat nor parties to the Agreement of Sale dated 01.06.1988 said to have been executed between the respondent No.4 (father of the petitioners) and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as the Vendor and the Vendees, respectively, in respect of the scheduled property located at Alwal Municipality, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the alleged consideration made in the year 1973 in favour of the respondent No.4 is void since the respondent No.4 was a minor at the relevant point of time. Senior Counsel submits that the impugned Award of the Lok Adalat was obtained by playing fraud on the petitioners since the father of the petitioners i.e., the respondent No.4, did not sign the Memorandum of Compromise dated 09.03.2019 which forms part of the impugned Award. It is also submitted that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 (purchasers of the property) deliberately chose not to register the sale deed during the life time of the respondent No.4 and that the petitioners asserted their independent right and interest in the subject property by filing an Execution Application (No.52 of 2024) on 30.04.2024 in the Execution Petition (No.31 of 2023) filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. A further point is taken on behalf of the petitioners with regard to the varying signatures of the respondent No.4 on the Agreement of Sale, the GPA, the Written Statement and the Memorandum of Compromise.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 (purchasers of the scheduled property under the Agreement of Sale dated 01.06.1988) strongly opposes the contentions made on behalf of the petitioners. Senior Counsel submits that the respondent No.4 executed the Agreement of Sale on 01.06.1988 in respect of the scheduled property in favour of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and received the entire sale consideration. According to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Sale Deed could not be registered in view of the prevailing restrictions under The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. It is submitted that the respondent No.4/father of the petitioners thereafter executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated 14.03.1989 appointing the respondent No.3 as his Power of Attorney and that the Agreement of Sale dated 01.06.1988 was validated on 13.03.2002.

7. Senior Counsel submits that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were compelled to institute O.S.No.229 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri (‘Trial Court’) seeking appropriate in relation to the subject property since the respondent No.4 was not coming forward to register the subject property. In the said suit, one B.Srinivas Reddy, a cousin of the respondent No.4, filed I.A.No.449 of 2012 to implead him as the party defendant in the Suit on the ground that the subject property was not partitioned. It is submitted that in the said IA, the respondent No.4 filed a counter stating that the subject property had fallen to his share pursuant to a partition. The Trial Court dismissed the Implead Petition of B.Srinivasa Reddy by an order dated 31.10.2014 by observing inter alia that B.Srinivasa Reddy was not a proper and necessary party to the Suit and that the partition had already taken place and the shares of each of the family members were allotted. It is further submitted that he respondent No.4 also admitted in the pleadings that he had executed an Agreement of Sale in favour of the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

8. Senior Counsel further submits that O.S.No.229 of 2011 was dismissed on 12.09.2017 by the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed A.S.No.255 of 2017 on the file of the XVI Additional District Judge, Malkajgiri (‘Appellate Court’). During the pendency of the Appeal Suit, the respondent No.4 and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 arrived at a settlement and filed a Joint Memo before the Appellate Court to refer the matter to the Lok Adalat. On 09.03.2019, a Memorandum of Compromise was filed by the respondent No.4 and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the impugned Award was passed by the Lok Adalat on the same day, i.e., 09.03.2019.

9. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

10. The relevant dates and events are briefly stated below:

               01.06.1988 - The respondent No.4/father of the petitioners executed an Agreement of Sale in favour of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 by receiving the entire sale consideration and putting the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in possession of the subject property.

               14.03.1989 - The respondent No.4 executed a registered GPA appointing the respondent No.3 as his Power of Attorney.

               06.02.1998 - The marriage of the respondent No.4 was solemnized.

               13.03.2002 - The Agreement of Sale dated 01.06.1988 was validated.

               02.11.2011 - The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed O.S.No.229 of 2011 against the respondent No.4

               September, 2011 - The respondent No.4 filed his Written Statement in O.S.No.229 of 2011 admitting the claim of the respondent Nos.2 and 3

               07.07.2015 - I.A.No.617 of 2015 filed by the defendants was allowed by the Trial Court and ordered for joint trial of the Suits i.e., O.S.No.225, 226, 228, 229, 230 and 231 of 2011.

               12.09.2017 - The Trial Court dismissed O.S.No.225 of 2011

               22.11.2017 - Challenging dismissal of the Suit, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed A.S.No.255 of 2017 before the XVI Additional District Judge, Malkajgiri.

               09.03.2019 - Upon filing of Memorandum of Compromise by both the Parties, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and the impugned Award was passed.

               18.11.2020 - The respondent No.4 passed away.

               28.12.2022 - The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed E.P.No.31 of 2023 before the Trial Court.

               26.04.2024 - The writ petitioners filed the present Writ Petition challenging the Lok Adalat Award dated 09.03.2019.

               30.04.2024 - The writ petitioners filed E.A.No.52 of 2024 in E.P.No.31 of 2023.

11. The above dates would show that the respondent No.4/B.Sai Paul Reddy was alive till 18.11.2020, i.e., more than one year eight months after passing of the impugned Award. Neither Mr.B.Sai Paul Reddy nor his wife/respondent No.5 objected to the Award. The petitioners, who were 15 and 7 years old, respectively, at the time of passing of the Award, also did not take any objection thereto. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed Execution Petition before the Trial Court on 28.12.2022 seeking execution and registration of the Sale Deed. The petitioners filed objections to the maintainability of the Execution Petition. The Trial Court, by order dated 26.03.2024, rejected the objections of the petitioners. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 (the Decree Holders) were directed to file a draft Sale Deed. The petitioners filed a Civil Revision Petition (No.1272 of 2024) before this Court and obtained stay of the order passed by the Trial Court on 26.03.2024. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition on 26.04.2024 questioning the impugned Award passed on 09.03.2019. The petitioners also filed E.A.No.52 of 2024 in E.P.No.31 of 2023 under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 of The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on 30.04.2024, namely for obstructing possession of the immovable property by decree-holder. Thus, it would be evident that the relief sought by the writ petitioners in the E.A.No.52 of 2024 is substantially the same or in aid of the relief sought for in the present Writ Petition.

12. We also deem it fit to hold that the father of the petitioners was represented by his Advocate before the Lok Adalat. Since the petitioners are disputing the signature of their father (Mr.B.Sai Paul Reddy) in the Memorandum of Compromise dated 09.03.2019, the petitioners must discharge their onus of showing that counsel representing their father was examined or was at least questioned in this regard by the petitioners. There is no such evidence on record to show that the petitioners challenged or questioned their father’s counsel with regard to the signature of the father being procured or obtained by fraudulent means.

13. Incidentally, the Memorandum of Compromise and the terms bear the signature of both the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the deceased respondent No.4 and their respective counsel. The Memorandum of Compromise also refers to the validation of the Agreement of Sale by proceedings dated 13.03.2002. There is a further reference to Notice of the proceedings being given to the respondent No.4 and his consent for validating the Agreement of Sale. The Memorandum of Compromise also contains a reference to the constitution of the respondent No.3 as the General Power of Attorney for the father of the petitioners by way of a document dated 04.03.1999 in respect of the subject property.

14. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are factually not tenable. The contention that the petitioners’ father received the consideration under the Agreement of Sale when he was a minor is un-substantiated. On the contrary, the undisputed fact remains that the respondent No.4 was a major/adult at the time of execution of the Agreement of Sale dated 09.06.1988.

15. We do not also find any material to prove that there are apparent or material discrepancy in the signatures of Mr.B.Sai Paul Reddy in the Agreement of Sale, the GPA, the Written Statement and the Memorandum of Compromise. The Courts have repeatedly held that statutory finality attaches to an Award passed by the Lok Adalat and that such Award must be treated as a decree. The Supreme Court has held that the only recognized avenue for challenging such an Award is the exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court which is supervisory and exceptional in nature (Dilip Mehta v. Rakesh Gupta, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2737).

16. Further, the mere allegation of fraud, by itself, cannot, by itself, be sufficient for setting aside a Lok Adalat Award. General allegations are insufficient. A party alleging fraud is required to plead and set forth full particulars of fraud since the case can only be decided on the particulars so pleaded (Bishnudeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai, 1951 SCC 447). We may add that to prove fraud, a Party must demonstrate that the representation made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation or that the Party could have no reasonable belief that it was true. An ambiguious or equivocal statement cannot per se make the representor guilty of fraud. To establish fraud, it must be proved that the representation made was false to the knowledge of the Party making such representation (A.C. Anantha Swamy & Others v. Boraiah (dead) by LRs, (2004) 8 SCC 588).

17. In the present case, the petitioners have not pleaded any particulars of fraud. They have also failed to explain as to how the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have played fraud on their father, Mr.B.Sai Paul Reddy.

18. Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 was born on 04.11.2003 (as stated in her cross-examination on 20.11.2024 in the EA). Therefore, the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.4 failed to obtain permission from the petitioners herein before executing the Agreement of Sale dated 01.06.1988 is without basis since the petitioner No.1 was born 15 years after the Agreement of Sale.

19. It is relevant, in light of the present facts, that the rights of a Hindu Coparcenar crystalises from the date on which a Coparcenar is in the womb of his/her mother, as per section 20 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, section 20 cannot be used to argue that the petitioner No.1 who is born on 2003 should be treated as having been a Coparcener in 1988, when her father (the respondent No.4) entered into the Agreement of Sale with the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

20. The above facts persuade us to hold that the Writ Petition is completely without merit. The petitioners have not only sought to file collateral proceedings against the impugned Award of the Lok Adalat, but have also failed to bring any challenge to the impugned Award either by way of facts or in law. The allegation, simpliciter, that the deceased father of the petitioners was fraudulently made to execute the Agreement of Sale on 01.06.1988 or that the Sale Deed was executed without the knowledge or behind the back of the petitioners is wholly untenable and in fact impossible in the admitted facts of the present case. There is no evidence that the petitioners’ mother/the respondent No.5 objected to the terms of Compromise executed between the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the respondent No.4 (Mr.B.Sai Paul Reddy) at the relevant point of time. There is also no explanation as to why the respondent No.4 failed to object to the impugned Award for almost two years till his passing away on 18.11.2020. Hence, we deem it fit to dismiss the Writ Petition. This is a fit case for imposing costs, but we refrain from doing so.

21. W.P.No.11925 of 2024, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.