Terms of Compromise Agreement shall be Understood in the Broad Background in which it was Brought into Existence by the Parties [JUDGMENT]

Mediation Agreement - the terms of compromise agreement shall be understood in the broad background in which it was brought into existence by the parties.

It is not a blind reading or mechanical adherence that is called for while comprehending or interpreting conditions or clauses in a mediation agreement. The stipulations in a mediation agreement are to be comprehended and construed in such a manner as giving effect to the true spirit of the consensus arrived between parties to the agreement. Once mediation agreement is found to be lawfully and voluntarily executed, any interpretation that does not help to promote or foster the ultimate object or goal of the settlement requires only to be discarded. The attempt shall always be to effectuate the true spirit of what the parties thought and intended to bring about by having the disputes compromised. In other words, the terms of compromise agreement shall be understood in the broad background in which it was brought into existence by the parties. Any other interpretation will only be technical defeating the very purpose of process of mediation and also the result desired to be achieved by the parties who consented to settlement.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

C.K.ABDUL REHIM & T.V.ANILKUMAR, JJ.

O.P.(FC)No.295 of 2018

Dated this the 15th day of January 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.No.1311/2017 IN OP 602/2017 of FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA

PETITIONER/ 4 t h RESPONDENT:

SABU EDWARD

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY ZACHARIAH

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2,3& 5 IN I.A.:

SANTHOSH AND 4 OTHERS

BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G

J U D G M E N T

T.V.Anilkumar, J.

The petitioner herein is the 4th respondent in I.A. No.1311/2017 and in O.P. No.602/2017 on the file of the Family Court, Chavara. He challenges by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Ext.P7 order of temporary injunction granted in I.A. No.1311/2017, restraining him from alienating the petition schedule 5 cents and the building situated therein comprised in Survey No.351/3-2 of Needakara Village. His objection to the prayer for restraining him from taking possession of property pursuant to Ext.P2 sale deed, dated 15.9.2017 was, however, upheld by the impugned order passed on 28.3.2018.

2. Petitioner in O.P.602/2017 is the former husband, who sued his former wife, two major daughters and others, for a decree declaring Ext.P2 sale deed as void on the ground of it being violative of Ext.P4 mediation settlement dated 2.12.2013 entered into between spouses in the connected litigations and also for consequential injunction. He married the first respondent-wife in the O.P on 8.5.1997 and the respondents 2 and 3 are his major daughters.

3. There were several litigations between spouses pending before the Family Court, Chavara and all the cases were voluntarily settled by them under Ext.P4 mediation agreement executed on 2.12.2013 and it was approved by the Family Court also. Pursuant to the mediation agreement, the marriage was dissolved through mutual consent, by Ext.P3 judgment dated 24.6.2014 issued by the Family court. There were various stipulations set forth in the mediation agreement of which we are concerned only with Clause Nos. 2 & 4. Condition No.2 provided that the husband/petitioner shall transfer his share of joint interest in favour of his daughters who were then only minors. This condition was fulfilled by him and there were no latches on his part. The result was execution of Ext.B3 settlement deed dated 19.6.2014 transferring his rights in the property in the name of minor daughters. Clause No.4 in the mediation agreement obliged the wife to transfer her part of the joint interest also in the name of minor daughters at the time of their marriage. The minor daughters became major after the mediation agreement.

4. It is an indisputable fact that the mother did not execute any deed transferring her interest in the property in favour of the daughters as agreed in clause No.4. Instead, she joining with the daughters executed Ext.P2 sale deed dated 15.9.2017 in the name of 4th respondent-the petitioner herein, transferring all their interests in respect of the petition schedule property for consideration. The petitioner-former husband being aggrieved by Ext.P2 seeks to assail its validity on the ground that execution of Ext.P2 was in infringement of Clause No.4 in the mediation agreement. He alleges that Ext.P2 is a sham document and further it was not executed for consideration also. On these grounds also, he attacked Ext.P2 as void and sought consequential injunction against alienation, creation of encumbrances and also the vendee taking possession pursuant to the deed.

5. Petition for temporary injunction was filed to restrain fourth respondent-vendee from taking possession under the void sale deed and alienating or encumbering the property. Fifth respondent is said to be his close associate who helped him to purchase the property from the owners. Respondents 1 to 3 are also sought to be injuncted from entering into the property and also committing waste therein until disposal of the O.P.

6. The petitioner herein filed separate objection seeking to sustain Ext.P2 sale deed as lawfully executed in his name and for consideration. Other respondents filed joint objection supporting the interests obtained by their vendee under Ext.P2 in all respects. They set up a common case that clause No.4 of Ext.P4 was never violated and in any view of the matter, the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the mediation agreement.

7. The view taken by the Family Court that Ext.P2 took effect and possession passed to the vendee appears to be sound. That is not challenged also. The court rightly refused to restrain the petitioner herein from taking possession pursuant to the sale deed. Temporary injunction was granted only to the limited extent of restraining alienation of the property until disposal of the petition.

8. The common contention of the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 in the objections filed to injunction petition is that, the intention of the spouses in incorporating Clause Nos.2 and 4 in the mediation agreement was to provide their daughters assets for the benefit of their future life. Execution of Ext.P2 was effected keeping in view the welfare of the daughters and their desire to have the property sold for their matrimonial, educational and incidental purposes. Conduct of first respondent mother did not involve any violation of Clause No.4. The Deed is perfectly valid as being executed keeping in view the very object behind settling the disputes between parties.

9. Both sides were heard.

10. The lower court regarded Ext.P2 as being violative of the stipulation in clause No.4 of the mediation agreement and took the view that subject matter should be preserved from being alienated until the validity of the sale deed was finally decided in the O.P. We would certainly have agreed to this view provided materials on record showed prima facie that Ext.P2 deed came into existence against the spirit and object of clause in Ext.P4 mediation agreement. Materials on record on the other hand compel us to take a different view.

11. The daughters themselves accept that the transaction was intended to benefit them and execution of sale was out of their free will and volition. The case pleaded by them shows that they on their own accord and in exercise of independent decision persuaded their mother to part with the property to third parties to raise funds for their benefit. We fail to understand as to how such a voluntary disposition having taken place at the sweet will of beneficiaries could be termed to be in violation of Ext.P4 mediation agreement. Position would have been different if the beneficiaries of compromise had been minors on the date of sale and it was effected without legal sanction obtained from legal authorities. Even assuming that mother had settled her interest in the property by a separate deed in favour of daughters, nothing would have still prevented the settlees from parting with the same on any subsequent occasion on their own choice. Father as party to mediation settlement could never have legally introduced a clause containing any absolute bar restraining alienation of property in the hands of the daughters. The bar then would only have been void under law. Therefore, in our opinion, nothing renders Ext.P2 unlawful or void. If at all there is any ground vitiating Ext.P2, grievance has to proceed only from daughters. The lower court did not fully understand as to how clause No.4 required to be comprehended and interpreted. It failed in imbibing the true intention behind the clause.

12. Only because a separate deed was not executed in the name of daughters by mother as contemplated in Ext.P4, violation of clause No.4 cannot be presumed or imputed. In Ext.P2, mother and daughters joined the transaction and executed the deed transferring their interests to the petitioner herein. Ext.P2 shows that it was executed for a valuable consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-.

13. It is not a blind reading or mechanical adherence that is called for while comprehending or interpreting conditions or clauses in a mediation agreement. The stipulations in a mediation agreement are to be comprehended and construed in such a manner as giving effect to the true spirit of the consensus arrived between parties to the agreement. Once mediation agreement is found to be lawfully and voluntarily executed, any interpretation that does not help to promote or foster the ultimate object or goal of the settlement requires only to be discarded. The attempt shall always be to effectuate the true spirit of what the parties thought and intended to bring about by having the disputes compromised. In other words, the terms of compromise agreement shall be understood in the broad background in which it was brought into existence by the parties. Any other interpretation will only be technical defeating the very purpose of process of mediation and also the result desired to be achieved by the parties who consented to settlement.

14. The view taken by the lower court is manifestly perverse and patently erroneous calling for our intervention in exercise of the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order therefore requires to be set aside and the petition for injunction dismissed.

In the result, the above O.P. succeeds and I.A. No.1311/2017 in O.P. No.602/2017 on the file of the Family Court, Chavara is hereby dismissed. We would, however, make it clear that the lower court while deciding the issues involved in the O.P. No.602/2017 shall not be influenced by any conclusion of facts arrived at by us in this order. It would be at full liberty to decide the O.P.,in accordance with law.