Disposed

Smt Laxmibai W/O Nagappa Pujeri v. Sri Krishnappa Bhimappa Madar

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023WP/103987/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioners challenged a Lok Adalat decree via writ petition, alleging collusion and deprivation of property rights. The Court held the decree was in personam, binding only the original suit parties, and rarely interferes; petitioners can defend their rights independently if acted upon.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; decree quashed observations only; inherent right to defend title retained.

Smt Laxmibai W/O Nagappa Pujeri Vs Sri Krishnappa… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14528 WP No. 103987 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 103987 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. NAGAPPA PUJERI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HANCHINAL K.K., TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591204.

¶10

SMT. RUKKAVVA W/O. DUNDAPPA MADAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ARJUNWAD, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591204.

¶11

ROHAN HADIMANI T

¶12

Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T

¶13

SMT. PARAVVA W/O. DUNDAPPA MADAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ZANGATIHAL, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591304.

¶14

SMT. SHARADA BASAVANA HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MAMADAPUR K.K., TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591204.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI & SRI. SUNIL KHOT, ADVOCATES)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI KRISHNAPPA BHIMAPPA MADAR, AGED MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14528 WP No. 103987 of 2023

¶20

SRI. CHANDRAPPA BHIMAPPA MADAR, AGED MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶21

SRI. BABU BHIMAPPA MADAR, AGED MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶22

SRI. BAHUBALI GOPAL BELAVI, AGED MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶23

SRI. BHARATESH GOPAL BELAVI, AGED MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, NO.1 TO 5 R/O. SARAPUR, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591309.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. CHETANA S. BIRAJ, ADV. FOR R4 & R5; NOTICE TO R1, R2 AND R3 IS SERVED)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS OF THE CASE AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE QUASHING THE IMPUGNED LOK ADALAT COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 19-12-2020 MADE IN O.S. NO. 72/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HUKKERI PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AS THE SAME BEING VITIATED AND VOID AB INITIO, ILLEGAL AND NON EST IN THE EYES OF LAW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶28

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14528 WP No. 103987 of 2023

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2020 passed in O.S.No.72/2020 by the Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri, the present writ petition is filed.

¶32

The case of the petitioners is that respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein filed O.S.No.72/2020 against respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat and there the parties arrived at a compromise wherein the rights in respect of the suit schedule property stood vested with respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is contended that, petitioners are the real owners of the property and not respondent Nos.1 to 3, and by a collusive decree between the respondents herein, they have sought to deprive the rights of the petitioners. On the said ground, the present writ petition is filed.

¶33

Admittedly, the rights determined in O.S.No.72/2020 are rights in personam between the parties concerned in respect of the suit schedule property

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14528 WP No. 103987 of 2023

¶35

and not a right in rem. The rights that have been conferred in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, in O.S.No.72/2020 shall operate only against respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein and not against the petitioners herein. The petitioners are always at liberty to defend their rights over the property if respondent Nos.4 and 5 try to interfere in the rights of the petitioners, if any, on the strength of the judgment and decree obtained in O.S.No.72/2020. It is needless to state that, if the petitioners have no right over the suit schedule property, then in that event, they will not be entitled to interfere with the rights of respondent Nos.4 and 5 over the suit schedule property.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed off subject to the aforementioned observations.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Smt Laxmibai W/O Nagappa Pujeri v. Sri Krishnappa Bhimappa Madar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Laxmibai W/O Nagappa Pujeri v. Sri Krishnappa Bhimappa Madar

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

Smt.Qamarjahan W/O Abdulsattar Belgaum Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Renuka Traders Vs the Director

M/S Laxmi Food Industry Vs the Regional Manager

Smt. Nandini W/O. Venkata Reddy Vs the Union of India

Smt. Yallubai W/O. Veersingh @ Earasingh Vs Puraji Yamanappa S/O. Hanamantappa

K. Thippeswami S/O Maliyappa Vs the State of Karnataka