Second appeals were dismissed. The court held that the appellants challenging a compromise decree on fraud grounds were not maintainable as no application was made to set it aside under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC.
The appeals were dismissed and the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1563 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 891 OF 2021 REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 940 OF 2021 REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1565 OF 2021
IN RSA No. 1563/2021
BETWEEN:
SMT SAKAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
Digitally signed by B VEENA KUMARI
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:43264 RSA No. 1563 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 891 of 2021 RSA No. 940 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER
ALL ARE R/O BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE (HELAVARA HUNDI), MAADAGALLI YELLE BELAKAVADI POST, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK 571130
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SWAMY M M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
DR. SOWMYA W/O DR M L RAJENDRAPRASAD, D/O M C NAGARATHNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O NO 430, 3RD MAIN, BOGADI, 2ND STAGE, NORTH, MYSURU 570026
…RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.11.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.122/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2018 PASSED IN OS No. *731/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
IN RSA No. 891/2021
BETWEEN:
SMT SAKAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
ALL ARE R/O BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE (HELAVARA HUNDI), MAADAGALLI YELLE BELAKAVADI POST, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK 571130
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SWAMY M M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
PUTTASWAMY S/O BOLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/O No.774, 3RD CROSS,
NC: 2024:KHC:43264 RSA No. 1563 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 891 of 2021 RSA No. 940 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER
GOKULAM, MYSURU 570026
…RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.11.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.118/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2018 PASSED IN OS No.730/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
IN RSA No. 940/2021
BETWEEN:
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
NC: 2024:KHC:43264 RSA No. 1563 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 891 of 2021 RSA No. 940 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE (HELAVARA HUNDI), MAADAGALLI YELLE BELAKAVADI POST, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK 571130
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SWAMY M M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI M BYARAPPA S/O LATE MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS NO.2552, 4TH CROSS KALIDASA ROAD, V V MOHALLA MYSURU-570002
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NO.235, EWS, J T EXTENSION KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570023
4 . PUTTASWAMY S/O BOLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/O NO.774, 3RD CROSS, GOKULAM MYSURU-570002
W/O DR M L RAJENDRAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O NO.2430, 3RD MAIN BOGADI, 2ND STAGE, NORTH MYSURU-570026
10 . SMT M P BHARATHI W/O C V HARISHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O NO.A/34, 807 HUDCO HOUSE, VIVEKANANDA CIRCLE
KUVEMPUNAGAR, 2ND STAGE
MYSURU-570023
15 . SMT GAYATHRI
W/O A S SADASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O NO.807, 3RD STAGE KUVEMPUNAGARA, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU-570023
…..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1-R4 & R6-R10 & R12-R14
NC: 2024:KHC:43264 RSA No. 1563 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 891 of 2021 RSA No. 940 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER
SRI. AKARSHKUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 R11 SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.11.2020 PASSED IN RA.No.78/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2018 PASSED IN OS No.900/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
IN RSA No. 1565/2021
BETWEEN:
NC: 2024:KHC:43264 RSA No. 1563 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 891 of 2021 RSA No. 940 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER
ALL ARE R/O BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE (HELAVARA HUNDI), MAADAGALLI YELLE BELAKAVADI POST, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK 571130
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SWAMY M M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI M BYARAPPA S/O LATE MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS NO.26/5, 1ST FLOOR, VALMIKI ROAD, V V MOHALLA, MYSURU-570002
…..RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.11.2020 PASSED IN RA.No.120/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2018 PASSED IN OS No.* 732/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
All these appeals arise from the common judgment dated 13.11.2020 passed in R.A.Nos. 118/2019,
119/2019, 120/2019, 121/2019, 122/2019 c/w R.A. No.78/2019 by the VII Additional District Judge, Mysuru challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 in O.S.Nos.730/2010, 731/2010, 900/2006 & 732/2010 passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru.
according to, as per their ranking before the trial Court in O.S.No. 900/2006. The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants.
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.900/2006 filed a suit for declaration of the ownership and to declare the judgments and decrees passed in O.S.Nos.129/98, 142/98, 145/98 and 143/1998as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for the cancellation of Katha entered in the names of the defendants.
The plaintiff No.1 was the wife of late Boraiah. The plaintiff Nos.2 to 8 are the children of late Boraiah, and plaintiff No.1 and the suit schedule properties originally belonged to the father of late Boraiah, by the name of Kurubarahalli Mallaiah. It is contended that, the suit schedule properties were granted by the Government in favour of Kurubarahalli Mallaiah on 18.01.1968. He
enjoyed the property till his death. The father of the plaintiff came in possession of the properties after the death of his father and the RTC was transferred in the name of plaintiff's father. The plaintiff Nos.2 to 8 decided to alienate the suit schedule properties for their financial problems. The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiffs and late Boraiah, and they executed an agreement in favour of defendant No.1 on 03.02.1994. At the time of executing the agreement, it was agreed among the parties that, they have to execute the registered sale deed within 4 months from the date of agreement. The plaintiffs, along with their father, called defendant No.1 and
demanded for payment of the balance sale consideration, amount, but the defendant No.1 did not agree for the execution of the registered sale deed. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 created the documents and the General Power of Attorney. The plaintiffs filed a criminal case against defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the year 2011. The father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 8 died on 10.06.2005. The plaintiffs were shocked to know that, the defendants Nos.1 to 4 had created the RTC in their name after making an enquiry with Tahasildar. The plaintiffs, after coming to know about it, that the defendants filed a suit in O.S.Nos.129/98, 142/98, 145/98 and 143/1998 seeking for the relief of declaration.
said suits. The said suits came to be compromised. The plaintiffs came to know that the defendants have played mischief and issued a legal notice on 19.07.2006. It is
contended that, the agreement of sale came to an end by efflux of time, and as the defendant No.1 did not come
forward for the execution of a registered sale deed. The plaintiffs, along with late Boraiah, were continued in the possession of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs and their father did not participate in the suit proceedings filed by the defendants. The defendants have cost impersonation. Therefore, the compromise decree passed in the aforesaid suits is not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit.
defendants are in possession and enjoyment of their respective suit schedule properties. It is contended that,
the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and their children started troubling the defendants. Therefore, the defendants filed a suit in O.S.No.129, 142, 143 and 145/98 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge, Mysuru for the relief of declaration of ownership based on adverse possession and for the consequential relief of injunction. The said suits came to be compromised. The plaintiffs No.2 to 8 appeared through their father, and they have executed a power of attorney in favour of their father, authorising him to enter into a compromise. By virtue of the compromise decree passed in the aforesaid suit, the defendants were declared as the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties. The defendants are in possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendants formed residential layouts and khata was mutated in their names. Hence, suits filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.900/2006 is are not maintainable and accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant Nos.1 to 4.
contending that one Laxman had purchased the property and constructed 2 sq.ft of house in jungar No.262. The Defendant No.9 purchased the same along with a site measuring 60X40 ft carved in Sy. No.17/6 from Laxman, and it is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.900/2006 is not maintainable. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.260/2009 without notice to the purchasers. It is contended that, the decree in O.S.No.260/2009 is collusive one. Hence, prays to dismiss the suits against defendant No.5.
therein are different and they filed a written statement denying the title of the plaintiffs therein over the suit schedule properties. The trial Court, based on the pleadings, framed the issues. All the said suits, were clubbed together, and common evidence was recorded.
NC: 2024:KHC:43264 RSA No. 1563 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 891 of 2021 RSA No. 940 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER
injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of B schedule property as shown in the respective plaints. The plaintiff in O.S.No.900/2006 and defendants in O.S.No.730/2010 to 734/2010 preferred an appeal in R.A.Nos.118/2019, 119/2019, 120/2019 121/2019, 122/2019 c/w 78/2019. The first Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, on the reassessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeals in R.A.Nos.78/2019, 118/2019, 119/2019, 120/2019, 121/2019 and 122/2019 and confirmed common judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid suits.
herein submits that the courts below, without considering the evidence and documents produced by the parties, passed the impugned judgments. Further, submits that the suit lands are Government land and the appellants have not sold the suit lands. It is contended that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 created sale deeds, filed false suits against the appellants and obtained a decree. He submits that, appellants have produced documents in regard to the grant of land, and the courts below have erroneously come to a conclusion that the land was granted in the year 1968 in favour of Kurubarahalli Mallaiah, and said, the finding is
contrary to the facts. He submits that, the said land was granted in 1982. He submits that, the land tribunal had imposed a condition that, the land should not be alienated for up to the period of 15 years; without considering the said contention, the Court below has passed the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he also submits that, the respondents have not produced any records and
they have obtained a decree illegally. He submits that defendants in O.S.No.900/2006 have not purchased the land from the plaintiffs and they have no right to sell the property in favour of defendant Nos.5 to 15 in O.S.No.900/2006 and the defendant Nos.5 to 15 have not acquired any title under the registered sale deed. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeals.
declared that the respondents are the absolute owners of
the suit schedule properties by the registered sale deed. The appellants aggrieved by the compromise decree passed in the said suits, have filed the suit in O.S.No.900/2006. If at all any fraud was played by their father in the said suits, the appellants ought to have filed an application for set aside the compromise decree. On the contrary, they filed a separate suit challenging the compromise decree. The suit filed by the appellants is not maintainable. Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC, which reads as follows:
'No such suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful'.
the basis of a Special Power of Attorney, had entered into
a compromise and a compromise petition was filed.
ORDER
The appeals are dismissed.
The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed.
No order as to the costs.
NC: 2024:KHC:43264 RSA No. 1563 of 2021 C/W RSA No. 891 of 2021 RSA No. 940 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER
In view of disposal of the appeals, pending IAs, do
not survive for consideration and accordingly disposed of.
Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE
SKS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit under O.S.No.900/2006 challenging a compromise decree is maintainable.
Whether substantial questions of law arise regarding the findings of fact passed by the lower courts.
Whether the appellants had the right to file a separate suit to set aside the compromise decree instead of applying to set it aside.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. MALLESHA
SRI. MAHADEVA
SRI. MAHESHA
SRI. MANJU
SRI. KRISHNA
SMT. PARVATHAMMA
ASHOK S.KINAGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
