Disposed

Laxmibai W/O Appanna Chougala, v. Kasturi W/O Nagappa Guledavar

Karnataka HC26 Jun 2019WP/101664/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash a compromise decree in O.S. No. 357/2014. The court held that the lack of notice to respondents regarding concurrent partition suits filed by the petitioner did not make the compromise unlawful or collusive.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief in the pending suit in O.S. No. 253/2014.

Laxmibai W/O Appanna Chougala, Vs Kasturi W/O Nagappa Guledavar — Partition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.101664 OF 2015 [GM-CPC]

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O APPANNA CHOUGALA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O ALAKHANUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DISTRICT BELAGAVI.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SHRI SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

SMT. KASTURI W/O NAGAPPA GULEDAVAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,

¶12

KUMARI LAKKAVVA D/O NAGAPPA GULEDAVAR, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶13

KUMAR MALAKARI S/O NAGAPPA GULEDAVAR, AGE: 14 YEARS,OCC: STUDENT,

¶14

KUAMR SIDDAPPA S/O NAGAPPA GULEDAVAR, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

ALL ARE R/O: ALAKHANUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DISTRICT BELAGAVI.

¶17

(RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS R/BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶18

MARUTI S/O SIDDAPPA KARIGAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALAKHANUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(By SHRI K.ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4; R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1; SHRI T.M. NADAF, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMPROMISE PETITION DATED 03/04/2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND DECREE DRAWN ON COMPROMISE PETITION DATED 03/4/2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, RAIBAG & IN O.S.NO.357/2014 TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioner has sought for compromise petition dated 03.04.2014 (Annexure-G) and acceptance of it by the principal Civil Judge, Raibag in O.S.No.357/2014 including the decree drawn pursuant to the said compromise (Annexure-J) being quashed/set aside.

¶26

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties namely Shri Srinivas B.Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri K.Anandkumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri T.M. Nadaf, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, it emerges from the records that petitioner has filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of two items of properties in O.S.No.253/2014 on 05.03.2014 . The brother of petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.225/2014 in respect of the very same property for partition and separate possession and

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

said suit was filed on 28.10.2013 . Subsequently, on 25.03.2014 , 5^th respondent herein (Maruti S/o.Siddappa Karigar) filed a suit in O.S.No.357/2014 for specific performance of agreement of sale, said to have been executed in his favour by respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein on 28.02.2012 and in the said suit a compromise was entered into between the parties by filing a compromise petition (Annexure-G), which was accepted, as reflected in the order sheet (Annexure-H) and decree came to be drawn as per Annexure-J. Contending interalia that said compromise is collusive compromise between respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 5^th respondent and to stave of the claim made by petitioner in her suit i.e., in O.S.No.253/2014, petitioner has sought for compromise decree being quashed/set aside by allowing the petition.

¶29

: 5 :

¶30

Per contra, the learned advocate

¶31

appearing for the respondents would support the decree drawn pursuant to compromise petition.

¶32

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, it would clearly indicate that suit in question i.e., O.S.No.357/2014 filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.02.2012 is by 5^th respondent herein only against respondent Nos.1 to 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein who are defendant Nos.8 to 11 in O.S.No.253/2014 and defendant Nos.1 to 4 in O.S.No.225/2013. In said suit, summons was not served as on date of filing of the suit in O.S.No.357/2014 or on the subsequent date when the compromise petition came to be filed i.e., on 03.04.2014. As such respondent Nos.1 to 4 cannot be attributed to have had the knowledge of the suit in O.S.No.253/2014 and O.S.No.225/2013 pending. Thus, the compromise petition, which has

¶33

: 6 :

¶34

been entered into between respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 5^th respondent cannot be termed as unlawful compromise petition or contrary to Section 23 of the Contract Act for being set aside by this Court. Even on the ground of either intrinsic fraud or extrinsic fraud the compromise entered into between respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 5^th respondent cannot be set aside. Merely because petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.NO.253/2014 against respondent Nos.1 to 4 perse itself cannot be a ground to set aside the compromise entered into by them with 5^th respondent. However, in the said suit i.e., O.S.No.253/2014, if the petitioner is able to establish that all the properties are joint family properties, in such an event it will have to stated that 5^th respondent has ventured to take the risk of purchasing such properties and it would be at his risk and peril.

¶35

: 7 :

¶36

In that view of the matter, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief in the pending suit in O.S.No.253/2014, present petition stands disposed of.

¶37

SD/JUDGE

¶38

Vnp*

Laxmibai W/O Appanna Chougala, v. Kasturi W/O Nagappa Guledavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmibai W/O Appanna Chougala, v. Kasturi W/O Nagappa Guledavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. G S Pateel Vs Bengaluru Developement

Shantayya S/O. Veerayya Hiremath Vs Nagaraj S/O. Hanumanthappa

The Gram Panchayat, Ramgurwadi Vs Anton S/O Juje Lobo

Bahubali Devagouda Nasalapure Vs Shantappanna Miraji

Jambayya S/O Somayya Pujar, Vs Somayya S/O Channabasayya Pujar

Laxmi W/O Anand Nandi Vs Basavaraj S/O Kempanna Kullur