Allowed

Savitri W/O. Ashok Pujari @ Kesarbai v. Vasantarao S/O. Siddappa Pujari

Karnataka HC30 Mar 2021WP/103236/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition to quash a compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalath. The court held that the decree was obtained by fraud and collusion as it was secured by suppressing the pendency of a regular appeal challenging the original decree and failed to include the petitioners who were necessary parties.

What did the court decide?

The compromise decree dated 10.1.2017 in OS No.129/2016 by the Lok Adalath at Bagalkot is quashed and the suit stands restored to its original file.

Savitri W/O. Ashok Pujari @ Kesarbai Vs Vasantarao S/O. Siddappa… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.103236/2018 (GM - RES)

¶7

Between

¶8

Savitri w/o Ashok Pujari @ Kesarbai, Age 37 years

¶9

Occ: House Wife

¶10

Add: Vinayak Nagar, Behind Shankarmath, Bagalkot Taluk & Dist: Bagalkot.

¶11

Abhinetri d/o Ashok Pujari Age 13 years Occ: Student, Add: Vinayak Nagar, Behind Shankarmath Bagalkot Taluk & Dist: Bagalkot.

¶12

Arpita d/o Ashok Pujari Age 11 years, Occ: Student Add: Vinayak Nagar, Behind Shankarmath, Bagalkot Taluk & Dist: Bagalkot.

¶13

(Petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors hence they are represented by natural guardian their mother petitioner No.1) ...Petitioners

¶14

(By Sri Mrutyunjaya S Hallikeri, Advocate)

¶15

¶16

A n d

¶17

Vasantarao s/o Siddappa Pujari Age 64 years, Occ: Retired KSRTC Add: Extension area Gokak Tq: Gokak Dist: Belgaum.

¶18

Baburao s/o Siddappa Pujari Age 66 years, Occ: Agriculture r/o Near Kasturi Mathad Gaddanakeri, Taluk & Dist: Bagalkot.

¶19

Bhagawwa w/o Baburao Pujari Age 62 years, Occ: Household work Add: Timmapur Post: Rampur Tq: Bagalkot.

¶20

Suvrna w/o Subasagouda Patil Age 41 years, Occ: Agriculture Add: Timmapur Post: Rampur Tq: Bagalkot.

¶21

Dakshayini w/o Ravindra Pujari Age 40 years, Occ: Household Add: Timmapur Post: Rampur Tq: Bagalkot.

¶22

Kalpana w/o Yamanuri Hejjerer Age 22 years, Occ: Household work Add: Kerur Tq: Badami Tq : Bagalkot.

¶23

Karuna d/o Ravindra Pujari Age 16 years, Occ: Student Add: Timmapur Tq: Bagalkot (defendant No.7 is minor Rep. By her mother defendant No.5)

¶24

¶25

Chidanand s/o Baburao Pujari Age 39 years, Occ: Agriculture Add: Timmapur Post: Rampur Tq: Bagalkot. ... Respondents

¶26

(By Sri M C Hukkeri, Advocate for R1, R3, 4, 5 and 8 are served R2, R6 – s/h/s R7 – minor r/by R5)

¶27

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the compromise decree dated 10.1.2017 in OS No.129/2016 passed by the Hon’ble Lok Adalath at Bagalkot vide Annexure-D.

¶28

This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in`B’ group, this day, the Court made the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Respondents filed a suit in OS No.37/2011 for partition and separate possession of their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. The suit came to be decreed on 12.12.2012. However, petitioners who were defendants in the suit were not allotted the shares since they had not filed counter claim, against which, petitioners and other respondents have filed RA No.10/2013. During the pendency of regular appeal and the FDP proceedings, respondent No.1 filed another suit for partition and separate possession in respect of very same properties. The said suit was referred to Lok Adalath for settlement. Before the

¶31

¶32

Lok Adalath, respondent No.1 and other respondents excluding the petitioners and other respondents entered into compromise and a compromise petition was filed. The Lok Adalath accepted the compromise petition and compromise decree was drawn. Hence, this writ petition challenging the compromise decree drawn in OS No.129/2016.

¶33

Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the compromise decree has been drawn without arraying the petitioners as parties to the suit so as to deprive their legitimate shares in the suit schedule properties. The compromise decree was obtained by suppressing the pendency of RA No.10/2013 challenging the decree passed in OS No.37/2011. Hence, on this ground, learned petitioners’ counsel prays to set aside the compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalath.

¶34

Learned counsel for respondents would submit that

¶35

this writ petition is not maintainable since the compromise decree was drawn on the basis of compromise arrived at between respondent No.1 and other respondents and petitioners,

¶36

¶37

being not parties to the compromise decree, have no locus standi to challenge the decree.

¶38

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

Against the decree passed in OS No.37/2011, petitioners herein have filed RA No.10/2013 and the same is pending consideration even to this day. During pendency of the said regular appeal, respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the very same properties by not arraying the petitioners as parties to the suit. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalath and before the Lok Adalath a compromise petition was filed by respondent No.1 and other respondents. The Lok Adalath accepted the compromise petition. Accordingly, compromise decree was drawn.

¶40

The compromise decree has been obtained by suppressing the fact that RA No.10/2013 challenging the decree passed in respect of the very same properties is pending consideration. The compromise decree on the face of it is

¶41

¶42

obtained by fraud and in collusion with the parties to the compromise petition. Hence, the compromise decree passed in OS No.129/2016 by the Lok Adalath at Annexure-D requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) Writ petition is allowed;

¶45

ii) The compromise decree dated 10.1.2017 passed in

¶46

OS No.129/2016 by the Lok Adalath at Bagalkot at Annexure-D

¶47

is quashed and the suit stands restored to its original file.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

Bkm

Savitri W/O. Ashok Pujari @ Kesarbai v. Vasantarao S/O. Siddappa Pujari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri W/O. Ashok Pujari @ Kesarbai v. Vasantarao S/O. Siddappa Pujari

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 Lakshminarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Rekha Birendraprasad Pande Vs the Union of India

Fakirappa S/O. Mallappa Kurbar Vs the Hubballi Dharwad Municipal

Sri. G. Kaling Rao S/O Lingojirao Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Gadagayya.B.Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Shivamurthayya Gangayya Hiremath Vs State of Karnataka