Dismissed

Smt.Lakshmavva W/O Hanamappa Bangari v. Shri.Basavaraj @ Basappa S/O Hanamappa Bangari

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2023WP/111687/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by a mother and brother challenging a Lok Adalath compromise decree. The Court found the respondents guilty of vexatious litigation, having acknowledged the decree in subsequent suits while filing fresh petitions years later based on doubtfully newer facts.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions were dismissed; exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000/- each was imposed on defendant nos. 1 and 2 payable to the plaintiff.

Smt.Lakshmavva W/O Hanamappa Bangari Vs Shri.Basavaraj… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 111687 OF 2019

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 106170 OF 2023

¶9

IN WP NO.111687

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. LAKSHMAVVA W/O. HANAMAPPA BANGARI, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWORK, R/O: GUDUR S.C, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶12

PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SHRI BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA BANGARI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUDUR S.C, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶16

MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR

¶17

SHRI KANAKAPP S/O. HANAMAPPA BANGARI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUDUR S.C, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶18

SMT. SHANTA W/O. BASAVARAJ BANGARI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLDWORK, R/O: GUDUR S.C, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶19

SMT. PARVATI W/O. KANAKAPPA BANGARI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLDWORK, R/O: GUDUR S.C, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI S.B. HEBBALLI, ADV. FOR R1 AND R3; SRI D.L. LADKHAN, ADV. FOR R2 AND R4)

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION is FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26/03/2011 AND COMPROMISED DECREE DATED 15/04/2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) BADAMI SITTING AT ITINERARY COURT HUNGUND IN O.S. NO. 07/2011, VIDE ANNEXURE C AND D RESPECTABLY.

¶24

IN WP NO.106170/2023 BETWEEN:

¶25

SHRI KANAKAPP S/O. HANAMAPPA BANGARI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUDUR S.C, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587118.

¶26

PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI D.L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

SHRI LAKSHMAVVA W/O. HANAMAPPA BANGARI, AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWORK, R/O: GUDUR S.C, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶30

SHRI BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA BANGARI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUDUR S.C, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶31

SMT. SHANTA W/O. BASAVARAJ BANGARI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLDWORK, R/O: GUDUR S.C, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶32

SMT. PARVATI W/O. KANAKAPPA BANGARI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLDWORK, R/O: GUDUR S.C, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.

…RESPONDENTS

THESE PETITIONS HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.10.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

These two petitions are filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 questioning the compromise decree recorded by Lok Adalath in O.S.No.7/2011 vide Annexure-C.

¶39

Before I advert to the facts, it would be useful

¶40

for this court to cull out the family tree furnished in O.S.No.7/2022, which reads as under:

Hanamappa (dead)

As per the plaintiff’s case, one Hanamappa is

¶45

the propositus who is survived by wife Laxmavva i.e., defendant No.1 and two sons namely, Basavaraj (plaintiff) and one Kanakappa (defendant No.2). Plaintiff instituted a

¶46

¶47

suit for partition and separate possession. The said suit

¶48

was referred to Lok Adalath and compromise is recorded.

¶49

The mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.2

¶50

is petitioner in W.P.No.111687/2019. She has questioned the compromise recorded in O.S.No.7/2011 which is dated 15.04.2011 and the petition was filed on 04.07.2019. The petitioner who is the mother of plaintiff and defendant No.2 has questioned the compromise decree by alleging that as on the relevant date she was admitted at Kerodi Hospital, Bagalkot as she was suffering from old age ailments. No summons was served on her. She alleged that respondents have taken undue advantage and have secured her signature on the compromise petition and the same is presented before the Lok Adalath. The compromise recorded in O.S.No.7/2011 is questioned by the mother by alleging that no opportunity is given to her to contest the suit.

¶51

The connected petition in W.P.No.106170/2023 is filed by defendant No.2 who is brother of the plaintiff. This petition is filed on 23.09.2023 when the connected

¶52

¶53

matter was already listed on 25.09.2023. Defendant No.2 has raised new ground which is not set up by the mother in the first petition. Defendant No.2 claims that plaintiffBasavaraj is not family member of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and that he is a son born to defendant No.1-Laxmavva through Laxman and not through Hanamappa. Defendant No.2 in the subsequent writ petition has raised a contention that he had no knowledge that plaintiff is not the son of Hanamappa and came to know about the said fact in July 2023. Therefore, on these set of grounds, defendant No.2 also questioned the compromise decree recorded in O.S.No.7/2011.

¶54

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and learned counsel for the plaintiff. I have given my anxious consideration to the grounds urged in both the petitions and also vacating application filed by the plaintiff in W.P.No.111687/2019.

¶55

The documents produced by the plaintiff along

¶56

with the vacating application clearly reflect and throw lot of light on the conduct of defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶57

¶58

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have questioned the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.7/2011 mainly on the ground that no notices were issued and the compromise was recorded hastily when defendant No.1 was admitted in the hospital.

¶59

Let me examine the conduct of defendant Nos.1 and 2 post compromise decree and after disposal of suit in O.S.No.7/2011. Defendant No.1 who is the mother of plaintiff and defendant No.2 has relinquished her share in respect of property bearing VPC No.1722/15 in favour of daughter of defendant No.2-Kanakappa. Para 6 of the compromise decree clearly reveals that above said property is allotted to defendant No.1. Para 6 of the compromise decree is culled out, which reads as under:

¶60

�� !��"� #$%&��'��$�� (�� ) � �(�)�� * � � � �� +��,�$�- � � � ./�� 0��1 � 0�23�41$�54� � )� � $6�7�)��+� � (8* � � � �� 9:1$�; � <)� � $6=�

¶61

Annexure-R1 is the document indicating that

¶62

she has relinquished her share in favour of daughter of defendant No.2 on 30.10.2015. Vide Annexure-R2,

¶63

¶64

defendant No.1 has admitted that she has voluntarily relinquished the above said plot in favour of daughter of defendant No.2 and the said application is tendered to the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, an inference can be drawn that defendant No.1 has knowledge of passing of the compromise in O.S.No.7/2011. Annexure-R4 would further clinch and strengthen the genuineness of compromise decree recorded in O.S.No.7/2011. Annexure-R4 is a suit instituted by defendant Nos.1 and 2 together in O.S.No.344/2016 seeking partition in respect of property No.19. The entire edifice on which the said suit is filed is that though compromise was recorded in O.S.No.7/2011, the property bearing No.19 is not the subject matter of O.S.No.7/2011. Para 4 of the plaint filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 reads as under:

¶65

�>�� ) �� ?�@1�) � 1 � 3��* � �� $��ABC� D�CE�FD�6G�� * � � �� ��H�� &�� * �� 7-�&��� I J!K��L��$M �� )��!�IKNI!K��L�� * � �� $��&��5(�1 � ,M) � L��� G � �L�7* �� ��O��P* �� +� � )$6��$M;$�� � � � � Q���* � � � � � ��L�R-C6�6�� * � �� ) � �� SL�+* �� (�-$M,�� &�6�-��,�AT � � � �Q� � U�1 � $�$�� $��8 � ��* �� +� � )$6�-��,�� � � � � � � (� � � ��6�9�V�$�W,M��$M�� -��,�� (�

¶66

¶67

-�� X1 � �P�W,M��* �� +� � )$6�XM��P�-��,�� � � � � ��

¶68

� � �� -�� X1 � � � ��0��Y0� � �� P* �� +* � �L�7* �� �� * � �1��$��Z� � !JN�X-�[�+� � )$6�� � � � � �� � �* � �� ) �� ?�1��$��ZM� � X-�[� �� (�- � �- � \��- � ��5(�� G� � � ��* � A��G��1�#�E�1$��&�� (�1$;�&�� X-�[� �� (� A��G�1$��&�� +��0� � � � �G* � ,��L�� ,�$�Q�� $�MB$���* � �� 1��$��ZM� � !JN�X-�[� �� (�- � �- � \��- � ��5(�� G��)�H1 � � ] A��G�� * � �� ,�$�7� �� X-�[�1$�MG- � � � 1 � ,) � �� ,�$�Q�� $�MB$�Q�*�� #^�� 2) � �6=�

¶69

10. The next crucial document which would further

¶70

clinch the genuineness of the compromise decree recorded in O.S.No.7/2011 is, suit filed by defendant No.1Kanakappa against the plaintiff and one Shantavva in O.S.No.323/2018. In the said suit, defendant No.2 acknowledges that property bearing G.P.No.15 is allotted to plaintiff’s share and therefore, he is seeking relief of declaration that he has got pre-emption right to purchase property bearing G.P.No.15 allotted to plaintiff’s share. It would be useful for this court to cull out para 4 of the compromise decree recorded in O.S.No.7/2011, which reads as under:

¶71

�F>�� ,�- � � � ��!��

¶72

��3�� "�+* �� ��,�� ) � �L�� !�+��,�$�)�B��

¶73

¶74

7*^�/�X-$ [ �� G�� /�#^��* � 7*^�/��^��3�� !� +��,�$�� ) �� Z_� � ��Y0� � 7*^�/��^��3��$��$�� ) � $6� 7�)�� $& �� 9:`1$��G� � )� � $6=�

¶75

On reading of para 4, it is clearly evident that

¶76

property bearing G.P.No.15 is agreed to be divided equally between plaintiff and defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 filed one more suit in O.S.No.225/2019 wherein defendant No.2 claims that plaintiff is not entitled to get his name mutated to property bearing G.P.No.15.

¶77

If these significant details are taken into consideration, this court is more than satisfied that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are guilty of initiating vexatious litigation against the plaintiff and the same is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. If defendant Nos.1 and 2 have acknowledged recording compromise in O.S.No.7/2011, which is evident from the culled out portion of the material placed on record by the plaintiff. This court is more than satisfied that this is a clear case of abuse of process. The Apex Court and this court have come down heavily on litigants who are guilty of initiating frivolous litigations. Vexatious litigants and frivolous

¶78

10 -

¶79

litigations are reserved a unique place in the law. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money, merely on the ground that he/she has easy access to justice. This is a case where defendant Nos.1 and 2 have misused as a licence to file misconceived frivolous suits. This court in catena of judgments has imposed exemplary cost to curb vexatious litigations.

¶80

It is the courts and not in the legislature that out citizen primarily feel the keen, the cutting edge of law. The faith of the people is the source and succor to invigorate justice intertwined with the efficacy of law. It is primary duty and highest responsibility of the court to impose exemplary cost to restore the confidence of the litigant public. The court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. Being sued can be incredibly frustrating. Even if the case is meritless, the defendant has to expend time, energy and financial resources to have the suit dismissed. The downside of such a system is that it can be abused.

¶81

11 -

¶82

The turmoil and expense of litigation can cause significant harm. The petitioners by filing present petitions have in all probability used judicial process to inflict injury on plaintiff. The petitioners itself have become a tool to harm defendant.

¶83

Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 has even gone to the extent of denying filing of suit in O.S.No.344/2016, which is produced at Annexure-R4 to the vacating application. He has gone to the extent of disputing the alleged relinquishment made by her in favour of her granddaughter i.e., daughter of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 has also gone to the extent of disputing the relinquishment deed by contending that it is manifested and concocted by plaintiff. This court is unable to understand as to why plaintiff should concoct the relinquishment deed in favour of daughter of defendant No.2. Para 4 of the plaint in O.S.No.344/2016 is clear admission of recording of compromise in O.S.No.7/2011. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 both have acknowledged that present suit in O.S.No.344/2016 is filed in respect of

¶84

12 -

¶85

property which is not subject matter of O.S.No.7/2011 which ended in compromise.

¶86

The suit filed by defendant No.1 in

¶87

O.S.No.323/2018 seeking right of pre-emption in respect of property allotted to plaintiff in O.S.No.7/2011 further clinches the genuineness of compromise decree recorded in O.S.No.7/2011. Defendant No.2 acknowledges allotment of property in O.S.No.7/2011 and acknowledging compromise recorded in O.S.No.7/2011. He has claimed pre-emption right in the property allotted to the plaintiff. Para 2 of the plaint in O.S.No.323/2018, which is culled out supra clinches the issue.

¶88

The vexatious and frivolous suits not only have an adverse effect on the party against whom frivolous litigation is imposed but also has an impact on the civil courts. The impact of ill practice of filing false cases or a vexatious litigation extensively hampers and prejudice the subordinate judiciary system in India and other legal mechanism. If the courts are flooded with frivolous litigations that obviously leads to delay in administration of

¶89

13 -

¶90

justice in deserving cases due to unsurmountable

¶91

pendency or backlog of cases. Plaintiff’s status is strongly questioned for the first time by defendant No.2 in W.P.No.106170/2023, while defendant No.1 mother has never questioned status of plaintiff. All these significant details only gives an indication that there is no respite for plaintiff as he is driven to the courts by defendant Nos.1 and 2 relentiously. The culled out portion supra clearly establishes that compromise recorded in O.S.No.7/2011 was out of freewill and consent by all the parties and no valid grounds are made out to set aside the compromise decree recorded.

¶92

This court needs to examine as to whether both the petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay also. Admittedly, compromise in O.S.No.7/2011 is recorded on 26.03.2011. Defendant No.1 mother has filed petition in W.P.No.111687/2019 on 04.07.2019. Defendant No.2 in all probability in collusion with defendant No.1 has filed one more petition in W.P.No.106170/2023 questioning the compromise

¶93

14 -

¶94

recorded in O.S.No.7/2011. It is well settled that power of High Court to issue appropriate writ under Article 226 is discretionary and constitutional court in exercise of discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. The compromise recorded in 2011 is questioned by defendant No.1 in 2019 and in 2023 by defendant No.2. The courts do not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court in the case of G.C.Gupta Vs.N.K.Pandey reported in (1988) 1 SCC 316 held that inordinate delay is not merely a factor for the court to refuse appropriate relief but also a relevant consideration for not unsettling settled things.

¶95

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. In the pending suit they acknowledge passing of compromise decree, while in the present petition they are questioning the compromise decree on the ground that the same is recorded without affording an opportunity to defendant

¶96

15 -

¶97

Nos.1 and 2. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Both the petitions even otherwise will have to be dismissed on the ground of delay also. The fact that defendant Nos.1 and 2 acknowledging the compromise recorded in O.S.No.7/2011 have sought partition in O.S.No.344/2016 in respect of plot No.19 on the ground that said plot is not subject matter of O.S.No.7/2011 also clearly gives an indication that defendant Nos.1 and 2 were aware of passing of compromise decree in 2016. The right of pre-emption sought by defendant No.2 also operates as estoppel against defendant No.2 in questioning the relationship of plaintiff. The relationship of plaintiff with defendant Nos.1 and 2 is not at all questioned by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.344/2016 or in O.S.No.323/2018.

¶98

For the reasons stated supra, I am of the view that writ petitions are devoid of merit. I am also more than satisfied that both the petitions are liable to be dismissed by imposing exemplary cost. It is unfortunate

¶99

16 -

¶100

that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have indulged in filing multiple suits and they have succeeded in unnecessarily harassing the plaintiff by launching frivolous suits. Hence, I pass the following:

¶101

ORDER

¶102

Both the writ petitions are dismissed by imposing

¶103

exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- each on defendant Nos.1

¶104

and 2 payable to the plaintiff.

¶105

Sd/-

¶106

JUDGE

¶107

MBS

Smt.Lakshmavva W/O Hanamappa Bangari v. Shri.Basavaraj @ Basappa S/O Hanamappa Bangari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Lakshmavva W/O Hanamappa Bangari v. Shri.Basavaraj @ Basappa S/O Hanamappa Bangari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yennarkay R Rajaratnam Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt Puttamma Vs Sri Nandyappa @ Goratti Sanna Nandyappa

Syed Shah Yousuf Hussaini Vs the Karnataka State and Anr.

Tuljaram Singh Vs the Karnataka Industrial Area

P. Chinna Duragappa S/O P. Ankalappa, Since Deceased R/by His Lrs. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Veerabhadreshwar Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka