Allowed

Padma W/O Laxmi Narayan Nagaukatte v. Girish Shridhar Shetti

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2023WP/101177/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged a compromise decree passed by a Senior Civil Judge based on a Lok Adalat award where several defendants did not sign the compromise. The High Court held that mandatory signatures of all parties are essential, set aside the decree, and remitted the matter to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Compromise decree dated 24.09.2011 set aside; suit O.S.No.3/2010 restored to trial court file for fresh adjudication within one year; deposited amount to be kept in fixed deposit.

Padma W/O Laxmi Narayan Nagaukatte Vs Girish Shridhar Shetti — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 101177 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PADMA W/O. LAXMI NARAYAN NAGAUKATTE, AGE: 87 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MALLIKARJUN KRUPA, MARIKAMBA NAGAR, SIRSI,U.K.DISTRICT-581401

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. PREMA W/O. SRIDHAR SHETTI, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

¶13

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI MKANKUPPI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶14

GIRISH SHRIDHAR SHETTI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC:PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: G-4, ”GURUKRUPA” MAHALAXMI RESIDENCY, 1^ST MAIN, JAYANAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580023.

¶15

DATTATRAYA BEERAPPA NAGARKATTE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶16

SHRIDHAR S/O. DUTTATRAYA NAGARKATTE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O:BANAVASI ROAD, TQ: SIRSI, U.K. DISTRICT -581401.

¶17

GANGADHAR S/O. DUTTATRAYA NAGARKATTE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: BANAVASI ROAD, TQ: SIRSI, U.K. DISTRICT- 581401.

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶19

MURALIDHAR S/O. DUTTATRAYA NAGARKATTE, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: BANAVASI ROAD, TQ: SIRSI, U.K. DISTRICT-581401.

¶20

KAMALAKAR BEERAPPA NAGARKATTE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶21

SMT. SHOBHA W/O. KAMALAKAR NAGARKATTE @ BHARATI, D/O. ANANT TODURKAR, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: REITIRED SERVICE, R/O:”PITRACHAYA” BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA, U.K. DISTRICT-581314.

¶22

SMT. RAJESHWARI D/O. KAMALAKARNAGARKATTE @ VIDYA, W/O. MARUTI SHETTI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BANDHAR ROAD, TQ: ANKOLA, U.K. DISTRICT-581314.

¶23

SMT. ASHALATA D/O. KAMALAKAR NAGARKATTE @ ASHA, W/O. GOVINDRAJ SHETTI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: CENTRAL RICE MILL, MELIKERE, GOKARNA-581319.

¶24

SMT. SEEMA D/O. KAMALAKAR NAGARKATTE, @ W/O. LAXMIKANT BHARADWAJ, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BEHIND ARUN THEATER, KAJUBAG, KARWAR -581301.

¶25

MARUTI BEERAPPA NAGARKATTE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶26

SMT. SHAILA D/O. MARUTINAGARKATTE, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA, U.K. DISTRICT-581314.

¶27

SMT. NAGARATNA D/O. MARUTI NAGARKATTE @ DEEPA, W/O. SUDHAKAR SHETTI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA, U.K. DISTRICT-581314.

¶28

- 3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶29

PANDURANGA S/O. MARUTI NAGARKATTE, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVICE, R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA, U.K. DISTRICT-581314.

¶30

PRASHANT S/O. MARUTI NAGARKATTE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVICE, R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA, U.K. DISTRICT -581314.

¶31

GURUNATH S/O. BEERAPPA NAGARKATTE, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED SERVICE, R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA, U.K. DISTRICT-581314.

¶32

PREMA W/O. SHRIDHAR SHETTI SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.

¶33

RAGHURAM S/O. BHEERAPPA NAGARKATTE, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, G/4, BHUSHAN APARTMENT S NO. 11/2, (PORT) SHAHU COLONY, LINE NO. 1, KARVE NAGAR, PUNE-411052.

¶34

KAMALA D/O. BHEERAPPA NAGARKATTE, AGE: MAJOR YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BHAVIKERI. TQ: ANKOLA -581314.

¶35

SHARADA W/O. MANGESHETTI, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: G4 GURUKRUPA, MAHALAXMI RESIDENCY, IST MAIN, JAYANAGAR, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580023.

¶36

RAVINDRA S/O. NARAYAN SHETTI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED SERVICE, R/O: BALEGULI, TQ: ANKOLA -581314.

¶37

VANITA D/O. NARAYAN SHETTI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: 2^ND FLOOR, SRI. BALAJI MANOHAR, 7^TH LINE, 9^TH CROSS, 1^ST STAGE, PADMAMBHA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560070.

¶38

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶39

SHRIDHAR S/O. NARAYAN SHETTI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: R/O: OM ALAKAR SOCIETY 3^RD FLOOR, 301 OF CHINTAMANI NAGAR, SUVARNNAGARI ROAD, BIVIWADA PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-411037.

¶40

VEENA D/O. NARAYAN SHETTI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: ROUND POUND SHANTINAGAR, BIOXIO NAVILLIAM MARGOA, GOA-403601.

¶41

ARUN S/O. RAMKRISHNA BADGERI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: R/O: 299/D RADHAKRISHNA BAAG, CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI-400004.

¶42

SMT. USHA D/O. RAMKRISHNA BADGERI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: DURGA NAGAR, TQ: HALIYAL-581329.

¶43

SINDU D/O. RAMKRISHNA BADGERI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN , R/O: C/4, INDRALOK, BUIDING OF DAV COLLEGE, DATTA COLONY, BUNDUP (E), MUMBAI-400042.

¶44

GANESHYAM S/O. RAMKRISHNA BADGERI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: 2B/92, NARMADA KALPATARU, RIVER SIDE OF PANCHAMUKHI HANUMAN MANDIR, PANVEL-410206.

¶45

VANDANA D/O. RAMKRISHNA BADGERI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: KNOWN, R/O: B/4 BHUSHAN APARTMENT, SY NO. 11/2, (PORT) SHAHU COLONY, LINE NO.1, KARVE NAGAR, PUNE-411052.

¶46

ANIL S/O. RAMKRISHNA BADGERI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: V/53, AVING 204, AZAD GOKUL DHAM, GOREGAON, (E) MUMBAI-400063.

¶47

…RESPONDENTS

¶48

(BY SRI VISHWANATH S. BICHAGATTE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1, 15 TO 18, 20, 21, 23;

¶49

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶50

SRI H.R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.14; SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.19 AND 26;

¶51

SRI S.B. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 22 AND 26; NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 13, 24 AND 25 ARE SERVED.)

¶52

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE COMPROMISE PETITION DATED 24.09.2011 FILED BEFORE THE LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL.JMFC ANKOLA (LOKADALAT) IN O.S.NO.03/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ORDER DATED 24-09-2011 PASSED BY THE LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL.JMFC ANKOLA (LOKADALAT) IN O.S.NO.03/2010, VIDE ANNEXURE-A1, FINAL DECREE DATED 24.09.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL.JMFC, ANKOLA, (LOKADALAT), IN O.S.NO.03/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A2 AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE O.S.NO.3/2010 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL.JMFC ANKOLA, ETC.,.

¶53

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

The office objection raised at Sl.No.31(3) is

¶56

overruled.

¶57

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the

¶58

parties.

¶59

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is

¶60

defendant No.6 in the original suit, filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff in O.S.No.3/2010 to quash the compromise

¶61

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶62

petition entered into by some of the parties dated 24.09.2011 before the learned Senior Civil Judge and Prl.JMFC, Ankola (Lok Adalath).

¶63

The petitioner who is defendant No.6 has challenged the legality and validity of the compromise petition dated 24.09.2011 filed before the learned Senior Civil Judge and Prl.JMFC, Ankola, in O.S.No.3/2010 and the final decree dated 24.09.2011 passed by the very same Judge.

¶64

It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.3/2010 for the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/11^th share in the compensation amount awarded for the acquisition of land bearing Sy.Nos.17/1A and 17/1B situated at Neralu Kanchinbal village of Ankola taluk. After appearance of defendants in the suit, during the pendency of the proceedings, the matter at request was referred to Lok Adalath for settlement on 24.09.2011, on which day the plaintiff and defendants No.10 to 12, 13

¶65

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶66

to 18 and 7 and 8 filed a compromise petition before the Lok Adalath with consent and signature of other defendants as per the compromise petition at Annexure-A. It is further contended that the Lok Adalath without following the due procedure contemplated under the Act, accepted the compromise petition and final decree was drawn in terms of the said compromise petition.

¶67

After coming to know of the fraud played by plaintiff and the defendants who had filed the compromise petition, defendant No.4 filed I.A.No.5 under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC to set aside the compromise entered into by the same parties, which application came to be rejected by the trial Court as not maintainable. Hence the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the compromise petition executed by the parties and which is culminated in a decree on the basis of the compromise entered into between some of the parties which is fraudulent and not signed by all the parties. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner and some

¶68

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶69

of the other defendants have not consented for the said compromise neither they have signed nor accepted the terms and conditions of the compromise petition with regard to the compromise decree. Hence the settlement arrived at between the parties and the compromise decree drawn is without consent of the petitioner and few other defendants. Therefore the compromise is invalid in the eye

¶70

of law in view of there being no valid consent by the petitioner and some of the defendants.

¶71

The defendant No.4 has initially filed an

¶72

application I.A.No.5 before the trial Court itself to seek an order to set aside the compromise on the ground that it is not consented and signed by the petitioner and few defendants. The same is without any knowledge, free will of the petitioner and that it is a fraudulent document played fraud on the parties as well as on the Court. Under these circumstances the application came to be filed. However the application was rejected on the ground that the remedy would not be available before the trial Court

¶73

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶74

itself and the same would have to be filed before this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

¶75

India. While passing such order of rejection of the application, the trial Court in fact holds that the regulations contemplated under section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, is in violation by the parties and it is also held that compromise petition should contain signatures of the parties and that the impugned judgment and decree does not specify the essential requirements and hence it cannot be held as valid. However the despite

¶76

the same the trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that it is not within the jurisdiction of the trial Court to deal with the matter to set aside the compromise decree as the applicant would have to approach this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶77

It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioner-defendant No.6 that the compromise petition executed by the parties therein is obtained by playing fraud, misrepresentation and there is no free will and

¶78

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶79

consent and many of the parties are not signatories to the said compromise petition, so also there is undue influence

¶80

and non following of the procedure contemplated in law. Further it is contended that it is a collusive compromise petition to obtain a fraudulent decree in the absence of the petitioner and other defendants and therefore the petitioner contends that when there is fraud, coercion, undue influence, and without consent a compromise cannot be entered into and even if it is entered into without consent, the same cannot be entertained by the Court and should have been rejected by the trial Court. Accordingly the petitioner is before this Court seeking to set aside the compromise decree drawn by the trial Court.

¶81

The respondents and plaintiff and defendants are represented through their counsel before this Court and some of them have been served unrepresented. The counsels who have represented the respondents before this Court are in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner that the compromise

¶82

11 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶83

petition is not in accordance with law and that the same is executed without consent and by undue influence without the knowledge and by way of misrepresentation leading to commission of fraud not only on the parties but also on the Court. Therefore all the parties i.e., the petitioner as well as the respondents in unison submit that the compromise petition is illegal, not binding on the parties as it does not have the force of law and the consent of the parties. Accordingly the compromise petition requires to be set aside and the matter shall be remitted back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication.

¶84

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the respondents. Perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court, so also the compromise petition executed at Annexure-A and the final decree passed on the compromise petition at Annexure-A2. In view of the fact that the petitioner who is defendant No.6 before the trial Court and defendants No.1, 2, 4 and 6 having not signed the compromise petition, the question of

¶85

12 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶86

acceptance of the compromise petition and decreeing the same is unheard in the legal parlance. Any compromise petition requires a mandatory signature of the parties to the suit along with their free will and consent, without there being any kind of undue influence, force or coercion and with proper knowledge and understanding, only thereafter the compromise petition can come into effect. These are the fundamentals of execution of a compromise petition to be effective and the trial Court on being satisfied with there being no undue influence or coercion

¶87

or force on the compromise petition and the terms and conditions entered into by the parties with free will, consent, after understanding the terms and conditions and

¶88

on the trial Court being satisfied with the same, on enquiry, can accept the compromise petition, failing which even if one person has not signed the compromise petition, the same canto be accepted and the judgment and decree cannot be drawn in terms of the compromise petition.

¶89

13 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶90

Admittedly in the present case several persons to the suit proceedings have not signed the compromise petition. The trial Court ignored this fact and has shown a blind eye to the parties who have not signed the compromise petition and has passed a judgment and decree in accordance with the terms of the compromise petition. Therefore, when the essential ingredients and requirements under law contemplates the consent and signatures, acceptance of the compromise petition by all the parties to the suit proceedings, the acceptance of the compromise by the trial Court when that having not been satisfied is farfetched and requires to be set aside.

¶91

It is seen that this petition is filed in March 2022 whereas the compromise decree challenged is dated 24.09.2011. The petitioner has stated in paragraph No.6 that since they having approached this Court late, sought to condone the delay in view of the fact that he was anticipating defendant No.4 who had also filed application I.A.No.5 to approach this Court. Be that as it may, when

¶92

14 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶93

there is a fraud alleged by the parties the question of delay would not arise as fraud vitiates everything and any order passed on the basis of fraud becomes nonest in the eye of law. This aspect has been appreciated by the Apex Court in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead)

¶94

by L.Rs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 , which is further reiterated in the case of A.V.Papayya Sastry & Ors. Vs. Government of A.P. & Ors., reported in AIR 2007 SC 1546 .

¶95

Learned counsel also refers to the judgment in the case of Bhargavi Constructions and another vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others, reported in

¶96

(2018) 13 SCC 480 , wherein in paragraph Nos.24, 25 and 33 it is held as under:

¶97

In our considered view, the aforesaid law laid down by this Court is binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article

¶98

15 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶99

226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by this Court, we are of the opinion that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person (respondents herein/plaintiffs) was to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award dated 22-8-2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. It was then for the writ court to decide as to whether any ground was made out by the writ petitioners for quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds are sufficient for its quashing.

¶100

The High Court was, therefore, not right in by-passing the law laid down by this Court on the ground that the suit can be filed to challenge the award, if the challenge is founded on the allegations of fraud. In our opinion, it was not correct approach of the High Court to deal with the issue in question to which we do not concur.

¶101

So far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, it also has no merit. In our view, the decision rendered in State of Punjab is by the larger Bench (three Judge) and is, therefore, binding on us. No efforts were made and rightly to contend that the said decision needs reconsideration on the issue in question. That apart, when this Court has laid down a particular remedy to follow for challenging the award of Lok Adalat then in our view, the same is required to be followed by the litigant in letter and spirit as provided therein for adjudication of his grievance in the first

¶102

16 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶103

instance. The reason being that it is a law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India (see M. Nagaraj v. Union of India). It is then for the writ court to decide as to what orders need to be passed on the facts arising in the case.

¶104

Therefore, I am in agreement with the

¶105

submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner and the respondents that the compromise decree passed by the trial Court vide Annexure-A2 dated 24.09.2011 cannot be sustained and accordingly the same will have to be set-aside as it is without free will, consent and knowledge of all the parties to the suit proceedings.

¶106

The petitioners and the respondents herein who are parties to the suit are also in agreement that the compromise decree being drawn by the trial Court be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication. The order of the trial Court therefore will have to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the trial Court for adjudication in accordance

¶107

17 -

¶108

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶109

with law afresh. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following:

¶110

ORDER

¶111

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶112

ii) The compromise decree dated 24.09.2011

¶113

at Annexure-A2 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Prl. JMFC, Ankola, in O.S.No.3/2010 is hereby set aside.

¶114

iii) Consequently the suit in O.S.No.3/2010 is restored to its original file for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law.

¶115

iv) In view of the fact that the original suit is of the year 2010, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously not later than one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶116

18 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7001 WP No. 101177 of 2022

¶117

v) It is also submitted by the parties that certain lands acquisition amount has been deposited before the trial Court. The same shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank which would secure

¶118

interest for the benefit of the parties.

¶119

Sd/JUDGE

¶120

MRK

¶121

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Padma W/O Laxmi Narayan Nagaukatte v. Girish Shridhar Shetti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padma W/O Laxmi Narayan Nagaukatte v. Girish Shridhar Shetti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddanagouda S/O Nagangouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Fakiravva D/O. Basappa Banappanavar Vs Smt. Paratevva D/O. Basappa Banappanavar

Sri Betadappa Vs Smt Shankarawwa

Sanjeevini Recreation Club Vs the State of Karnataka

Jude S/O George Fernandes Vs Martin George Fernandes

Smt Shivubai W/O Bhimappa Kalloli Vs Smt Sanvakka W/O Murari Aliyas Murigeppa Magadum