Dismissed

Kariyappa @ Kareppa S/O Ningappa Meti v. Somaraya S/O Kenchappa Meti

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2023WP/147467/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging a compromise decree recorded by Lok-Adalat. The court held that the petitioner, who admitted receiving full consideration and waiving claims in the compromise, could not quash the decree by alleging breach regarding non-signatory defendants' assurances.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition questioning the compromise decree stands dismissed.

Kariyappa @ Kareppa S/O Ningappa Meti Vs Somaraya S/O… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 147467 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.147467 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KARIYAPPA @ KAREPPA S/O. NINGAPPA METI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIMIKERI, TQ: BAGALKOTE-587103.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI DEEPAK MAGANUR, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SOMARAYA

¶14

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶15

Digitally signed byYASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶16

S/O. KENCHAPPA METI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANTAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.

¶17

SMT. RATANAVVA W/O. SOMARAYA METI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ANTAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.

¶18

BASAPPA

¶19

S/O. SOMARAYA METI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANTAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL,

¶20

¶21

WP No. 147467 of 2020

¶22

DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.

¶23

NAGAPPA S/O. SOMARAYA METI AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANTAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 5. KUMARI. SHILPA D/O. SOMARAYA METI AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: ANTAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.

¶24

SMT. LATA @ TEJASWINI W/O. SIDDAPPA TALEWAD AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANTAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.

¶25

RACHAPPA S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA KAREHONNA AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANTAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF TH CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS COURT TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 16.08.2011 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE LOWER COURT TO REOPEN THE PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.NO.56/2010 AND DISPOSE THE CASE ON MERITS AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.

¶28

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

¶29

3 - WP No. 147467 of 2020

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff questioning the compromise recorded in O.S.No.56/2010 on the ground that defendant Nos.1 to 5 who are not signatory to the compromise had assured that they would pay an amount of Rs.12,94,000/- to the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff claims that he has signed in good faith as there was an assurance, that defendant Nos.1 to 5 will reimburse the above said amount.

¶32

Present captioned writ petition is filed questioning the compromise decree on the premises that this compromise decree has to be set aside as there is breach on the part of defendant Nos.1 to 5.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶34

perused the terms of the compromise decree.

¶35

It would be useful to refer to paragraph No.1 of

¶36

the joint compromise petition, which reads as under;

¶37

¶38

WP No. 147467 of 2020

¶39

“¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA.6 EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:12-07-2010 gÀAzÀÄ zÁªÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA.1 FvÀ£À ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA.7 EªÀjUÉ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬ÄvÀ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÖ RjÃ¢ ¥ÀvÀæªÀÅ ªÁ¢ ªÉÄÃ¯É §AzsÀ£ÀPÁgÀPÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ CAvÁ M¦àzÀÄÝ, EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16-08-2011 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA.6 EªÀgÀÄ »jAiÀÄgÀ ªÀÄzsÀå¹ÜPÉAiÀÄAvÉ ªÁ¢UÉ gÀPÀA gÀÆ.4,50,000-00 PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀgÀ gÀPÀA ªÁ¢UÉ ªÀÄÄnÖgÀÄªÀÅzÁV M¦àgÀÄvÁÛ£É ºÁUÀÆ E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÁ¢UÉ zÁªÉ D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ jÃw ºÀPÀÄÌ ªÀ »vÁ¸ÀQÛ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è CAvÁ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ M¦àgÀÄvÁÛ£É.”

¶40

On perusal of the same, this Court would find that the plaintiff has admitted that he has received entire consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- and there is a statement made by the plaintiff that he has no further claim and has no semblance of right and title over the property in question. He has also admitted in the next paragraph that the transactions entered into between defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 7, would bind on him.

¶41

If these significant details are looked into, this Court is of the view that the present petitioner cannot maintain the captioned writ petition questioning the compromise decree. If he has voluntarily entered into compromise with an assistance of the lawyer and if a compromise is recorded by the Lok-Adalat, then the same

¶42

¶43

WP No. 147467 of 2020

¶44

has to be treated at higher pedestal. Plaintiff cannot be permitted to turn around and claim that he is entitled to further sum of Rs.12,94,000/-.

¶45

The paragraph which is culled out above,

¶46

clearly reveals that the plaintiff has given up his claim and therefore he cannot maintain the captioned writ petition. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that to recall a compromise that has been recorded would call for strong reasons. When Lok-Adalath disposes cases in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties to a suit, after following principles of equity and natural justice, a Writ Court cannot, in a casual manner, dehors any reasonings and set aside the order of the Lok-Adalath. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ruby Sales and Services Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra¹ observed that a consent decree is a creature of an agreement and can be set aside only if there are strong reasons to set aside a valid compromise. Allegation of

¶47

1 (1994) 1 SCC 531

¶48

¶49

WP No. 147467 of 2020

¶50

fraud have to be proved strictly in order to avoid the agreement. None of the instances are found in the present case on hand . If the parties to the dispute had a occasion to directly interact with a judge and conciliator and if in their presence, the lawful agreement is arrived at with the consent of the parties, plaintiff cannot be permitted to

¶51

turn around and claim that he is entitled to further sum of Rs.12,94,000/-.

¶52

Accordingly writ petition stands dismissed.

¶53

SD/JUDGE

¶54

EM : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Kariyappa @ Kareppa S/O Ningappa Meti v. Somaraya S/O Kenchappa Meti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kariyappa @ Kareppa S/O Ningappa Meti v. Somaraya S/O Kenchappa Meti

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

Sri.Dayanandachar S/O Purvachar Poojar Vs Vishwakarma Samaj Vikas Sansthe

Sri. Nagappa Vs Smt. Lalita

Shri Vijay S/O Basavant Chougule Vs Smt. Akshata W/O Vijay Chougule

Smt.Pushpa W/O Mahadev Kinagi Vs Shri.Ashok Nagappa Sulebhavi

Basappa S/O Bharamappa Airani Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Shankar S/O Maruti Jambagi Vs Karnataka Co-Operative Society Ltd. Harugeri