Dismissed

R Madaiah v. Sri Nagaraj

Karnataka HC29 Aug 2023RSA/431/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that parties to a compromised family dispute cannot file a separate suit challenging the compromise. An application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint for lack of cause of action is the proper remedy, and a separate suit is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3(a) of CPC. Second appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Plaint rejected; No cause of action for separate suit.

R Madaiah Vs Sri Nagaraj — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:30970 RSA No. 431 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.431 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R MADAIAH S/O LT RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶9

M RAVISHAKARA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶10

M VIJAY KUMAR S/O R MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT C T SHILPA W/O M VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT HOUSE No.13 OF MADHUVANA SURVEY No.69 SRI HARISHCHANDRA ROAD SHANKARAMUTT EXTENTIN MYSORE - 570004

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI SRINIVASA REDDY R V, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:30970 RSA No. 431 of 2022

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI NAGARAJ S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YERS

¶19

SRI N RAKSHIT S/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶20

BOTH ARE R/AT HOUSE No.13 OF MADHUVANA SURVEY No.69 SRI HARSICHANRA ROAD SHANKARAMUTT EXTENSION MYSURU – 570004

¶21

SMT.PREMA D/O LATE RAMAIAH W/O SRI RAMALINGU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶22

SRI PRABHU S/O RAMALINGU AGE: MAJOR

¶23

SRI MAHESHA RAMALINGU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶24

RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE R/AT HOUSE No.3/1 6^TH CROSS ROAD, 1^ST MAIN ROAD SRI CHANDRAMOULEESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD SARASWATHIPURAM MYSURU-570009

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:30970 RSA No. 431 of 2022

¶26

SMT. NANJAMMA @ SAVITHRAMMA D/O LATE RAMAIHA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/T HOUSE No.13 OF MADHUVANA SURVEY No.69 SRI HARISHCHANDRA ROAD SHANKARAPURAMUTT EXTENSION MYSURU – 570004

¶27

SRI MAHALINGAIAH S/O LATE RAMAIAH R/T HOUSE NO,13 OF MADHUVANA SURVEY No.69 SRI HARISCHANDRA ROAD SHANKARAPURAMUTT EXTENSION MYSURU-570004

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC

¶30

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.12.2021 PASSED IN R.A.No.81/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU AND ETC.

¶31

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

¶32

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:30970 RSA No. 431 of 2022

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶37

appellants.

¶38

This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 16.12.2021 passed in R.A.No.81/2021 wherein confirmed the order dated 31.01.2020 passed on I.A.No.4 by the Trial Court. I.A.No.4 was filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC praying the Court to reject the plaint as the same is barred by law and there is no cause of action. In support of the said application, an averment is made that in FDP No.8/2011, the parties themselves have entered into a compromise and a right was provided to them in terms of the said compromise. Once the parties have compromised the matter, they cannot file a separate suit challenging the said compromise and seek for an order. The appellants herein have filed an objections to the said I.A.No.4. The Trial Court having considered the material on record comes to the conclusion that a separate suit is not maintainable and the parties of the compromise shall

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:30970 RSA No. 431 of 2022

¶40

prefer an application in the said suit only and the plaintiffs are barred from bringing a new suit challenging the said compromise and they are at liberty to challenge it before the Court in which compromise was entered. Hence, I.A.No.4 was allowed and plaint was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal and also considering the provision of Order XXIII Rule 3(a) of CPC where there is a specific bar to file a separate suit challenging the compromise, dismissed the

¶41

appeal and hence, the present second appeal is filed before this Court challenging the order of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court.

¶42

The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that in terms of the compromise, a right is provided to the parties and both the Courts have committed an error in allowing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC and the said

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:30970 RSA No. 431 of 2022

¶44

impugned order is misconstruing the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC and also Order XXIII Rule 3(a) of CPC as well as Section 96.

¶45

Having perused the material on record as well as the submission of the counsel for the appellants, it is not in dispute that there was a decree in FDP No.8/2011 in terms of the compromise entered between the parties. It is also not in dispute that a separate suit was filed challenging the order of compromise which was passed in FDP No.8/2011 and defendants appeared and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC stating that there is no cause of action and the plaint is barred by law. In view of Order XXIII Rule 3(a) of CPC there is a bar to file a separate suit questioning the compromise and the same can be urged in the very same proceedings before the very same Court by filing a necessary application. The said observation is made by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court also taking into note of the provision of Order XXIII Rule 3(a) of CPC

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:30970 RSA No. 431 of 2022

¶48

comes to the conclusion that separate suit is not maintainable to challenge the compromise and rightly rejected the appeal. Having considered the submissions of the counsel and also on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts have not committed any error by taking note of Order XXIII Rule 3(a) of CPC which bars filing of a separate suit challenging the compromise and in allowing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC in coming to the conclusion that there is no separate cause of action and the same is barred by law. Hence, no grounds are made out by the appellants to admit the appeal and to frame the substantial questions of law.

¶49

5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

¶50

the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

The appeal is dismissed.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

R Madaiah v. Sri Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Madaiah v. Sri Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sakamma Vs Sri B Lakshman

Kumarunnisa Vs Abdul Jaheer

Mahadeva Vs Amase Madaiah

Mrs. Sarojini J. Shetty Vs Mr. Henry Salvadore D Souza

Syed Farooq Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Sri Keshava Sapalya Vs Sri Vasudeva Prabhu