Dismissed

Sri Bhadraiah v. Sri Krishna Murthy M

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2024MFA/2844/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court held that an independent suit challenging a compromise decree is not maintainable. The court directed the appellants to file an application in the very same court that passed the decree, relying on principles established in the Supreme Court judgment of Triloki Nath Singh vs Anurudh Singh.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the appellants to file an application in the Court that passed the decree.

Sri Bhadraiah Vs Sri Krishna Murthy M — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:46219 MFA No. 2844 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2844 OF 2022 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI BHADRAIAH S/O LATE, CHIKKAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. PILLAMMA @ NARASAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT KANNALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHLLI POST YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560022

¶10

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI GIRISH KODGI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

SRI KRISHNA MURTHY M S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶15

SRI. SIDDARAJU K.M S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶16

SRI. GOVINDA RAJU, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:46219 MFA No. 2844 of 2022

¶19

ALL THE RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT KANNALLI, VILLAGE, KODIGEHALLI POST, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560022.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 1 IN OS.NO.244/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

respective parties.

¶28

While hearing the matter, this Court noticed

¶29

that in the suit itself sought for cancellation of judgment and decree dated 12.04.2014 passed in O.S.No.623/2014

¶30

and also sought for consequential relief of declaration.

¶31

This Court brought to notice of the respective counsels

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46219 MFA No. 2844 of 2022

¶33

that the Dharwad Bench in W.P.No.104723/2024 as well as W.P.No.103856/2024 vide order dated 23.08.2024 already taken decision with regard to the very maintainability of the suit challenging the judgment and decree and this Court held that if there is any compromise decree passed in any of the Court, the parties have to approach the very same Court. This Court, in the aforementioned writ petitions, also referred the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2020) 6 SCC 629 in the case of TRILOKI NATH SINGH vs ANURUDH SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS and discussed the said judgment in detail and even taken note of recent judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2023 KAR 1277 in the case of K SRINIVASAPPA AND OTEHRS vs M MALLAMMA AND OTHERS wherein

¶34

also this Court held that it is settled position of law that where the allegation of fraud is made against a party to an agreement, the said allegation would have to be proved strictly, in order to avoid the agreement on the ground that fraud was practiced on a party in order to induce such

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46219 MFA No. 2844 of 2022

¶36

party to enter into the agreement. Similarly, the terms of

¶37

a compromise decree cannot be avoided, unless the allegation of fraud has been proved. In the absence of any conclusive proof as to fraud on the part of the objectors, the High Court could not have set aside the compromise decree in the present case. The Hon’ble Apex

¶38

Court also while discussing Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, equates an award of the Lok Adalath to a decree of a Civil Court and imputes an element of finality to an award of compromise passed by the Lok- Adalath. When the 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, every such award of the Lok Adalath shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and such decree shall be final and binding upon the parties.

¶39

Having considered the principles laid down in

¶40

the judgments referred supra and also the contentions of the parties, this Court also taken note of the judgment of

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46219 MFA No. 2844 of 2022

¶42

Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER vs JALOUR SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660 also and in detail considered the material available on record and comes to the conclusion that when the judgment and decree is challenged, the same has to be questioned before the very same Court.

¶43

In the writ petitions, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the very same Court by filing necessary application and seek for appropriate relief before the appropriate forum as he has got the interest over the property and even claiming the relief in terms of the documents which they have relied upon. When such observation is made, when the appellants also sought for the relief of declaration based on the sole independent right as well as seeking the relief for setting aside the judgment and decree of compromise to declare the same as fraudulent, same cannot be done in an independent suit. Hence, when the suit itself is not maintainable, the question of granting interim relief also does not arise. However, the appellant is given liberty to approach the

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:46219 MFA No. 2844 of 2022

¶45

very same Court by filing an application as observed by the Apex Court in the case of TRILOKI NATH SINGH wherein also considered the grounds which have been urged in the independent suit filed before the Trial Court. Hence, it is appropriate to give liberty to the appellants to file an application before the very same Court.

¶46

The learned counsel for the appellants submits

¶47

that the very suit already been filed before the Trial Court may be considered as an application before the same Court since already pleadings have completed and evidence has been let in. When the Apex Court gives specific direction to make an application and the suit which

¶48

is already been filed cannot be treated as an application, the said submission would be against the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of TRILOKI NATH

¶49

SINGH and hence, the suit cannot be treated as IA in view of observation made by the Apex Court. Said submission cannot be accepted. This Court made it clear that the appellants can approach the very same Court by

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:46219 MFA No. 2844 of 2022

¶52

filing an application as observed by the Apex Court in TRILOKI NATH SINGH’s case. With these observations, the miscellaneous first appeal is disposed of.

¶53

All contentions raised by the respective parties are kept open.

¶54

In view of disposal of the main appeal, I.As. if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed of.

¶55

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶56

Sri Bhadraiah v. Sri Krishna Murthy M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bhadraiah v. Sri Krishna Murthy M

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

Sri Venkatappa K G Vs J Manjunath

Miss. Niharika Chetan Vs Smt Saroja S Shetty

Sri N Chandrashekaraiah Vs Sri B Shivanandaiah

Smt. Shakunthala Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

M/S Aegis Logistics Limited Vs Mr. Chuna Rafi Ahmed

Prashanth Babu. R Vs Smt. Sujatha Prabhakar