The Kerala High Court has held that a Taluk Legal Services Committee has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint and pass an award under Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, even if the subject matter involves a high pecuniary value, inasmuch as the provision speaks only of territorial jurisdiction and does not prescribe any pecuniary jurisdiction. Justice Harisankar V. Menon observed that the statute does not require the existence of a Sub Court or any monetary limit for the Taluk Legal Services Authority to exercise jurisdiction, and that the only requirement is that the dispute falls within the territorial limits for which the Lok Adalat is organized. The Court further clarified that a mere allegation of fraud, without conclusive proof, cannot be a ground to set aside a Lok Adalat award, especially when the parties appeared voluntarily and were accompanied by a lawyer.

The writ petition was filed by Prasanth P. Kumar and Shyamalakumari @ Shyamladevi challenging the award dated 12.11.2022 passed by the Adoor Taluk Legal Services Committee in PLP No.1719/2022. The petitioners had entered into an agreement for sale with the 4th respondent, who paid an advance amount in excess of Rs.90 lakhs. The sale transaction did not materialize for one reason or another. The 4th respondent sought return of the advance amount, and the petitioners were also ready to refund the same in terms of the agreement. However, since the petitioners did not refund the advance, the 4th respondent instituted a complaint before the Adoor Taluk Legal Services Authority on 18.10.2022. The petitioners were directed to appear by telephone and, on the basis of the said direction, they appeared before the 3rd respondent on the very next day, i.e., 19.10.2022, along with a lawyer. By the impugned award, the Committee recorded the undertaking given by the petitioners that they were ready and willing to refund the amount of Rs.98,35,000/- on or before 05.04.2023. Post-dated cheques issued by the petitioners were also handed over to the 4th respondent. However, the cheques were not honoured. The 4th respondent thereafter sought to execute the award by filing an execution petition on 10.04.2023. The petitioners entered appearance and filed objections to the execution petition. Even after all the above proceedings, the petitioners instituted the writ petition on 25.11.2023 challenging the award.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the entire proceedings leading to the award could not be sustained for more than one reason. It was argued that the award was passed on account of a fraud played on the petitioners. Secondly, it was submitted that the 3rd respondent did not have any jurisdiction to issue the award with reference to the mandate under Section 19(5)(ii) of the Act, inasmuch as the petitioners could not have instituted a suit with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction since the Taluk of Adoor did not have a Sub Court. Per contra, learned counsel for the 4th respondent pointed out that even going by the averments in the writ petition, the fraud alleged against the entire proceedings had not been proven. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Srinivasappa & Ors v. M. Mallamma & Ors [AIR 2022 SC 2381] to contend that unless and until the alleged fraud is proven conclusively, an award passed by a Lok Adalat could not be interfered with by this Court. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 joined the issue and pointed out that the contention regarding Section 19(5)(ii) of the Act does not arise for consideration in view of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.(C) No.6190 of 2019.

The Court, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the records, first considered the allegation of fraud. It noticed that the averments to that effect are contained only in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, wherein it is stated that the petitioners were directed over phone to appear before the Adalat on the “very next day” and, when they appeared as directed, they were forced into the compromise. The Court held that the afore would not be sufficient to prove any fraud, especially when the petitioners themselves admit that there was no coercion for their appearance and that they were accompanied by a lawyer. Hence, the allegation as regards fraud was turned down. As regards the jurisdiction, the Court observed that though the contention of the petitioners appears attractive at first blush, on a deeper analysis of the provisions of Section 19(5) of the Act, it is clear that the provision has not spoken about any “pecuniary jurisdiction” and has only spoken about “territorial jurisdiction”. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to succeed on that ground. The Court also referred to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had considered the very same issue and categorically found that the statute does not specify any pecuniary jurisdiction. On that basis, it was held that the Taluk Legal Services Authority could also entertain a complaint. The Court further noticed the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Thomas @ Thomas v. Florance [2006 (3) KLT 717], wherein more or less the same principles have been laid down.

In such circumstances, the Court was of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to succeed. Therefore, it found no merit in the writ petition and the same was dismissed.

Case Title: Prasanth P. Kumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case No.: WP(C) No. 39720 of 2023
Date of Judgment: 26 March 2026

Click HERE for full Judgment