Dismissed

Nagaraj Ganapati Bhat Alias Madguni v. F M Ganapati Parameshwar Bhat Since Deceased by Lrs.

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2024WP/100098/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging a trial court order that rejected a compromise application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The Court held that an agreement executed outside court and signed only by the petitioner cannot be validated under Order 23 Rule 3 when respondents deny its execution.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; trial court to proceed with trial of the matter.

Nagaraj Ganapati Bhat Alias Madguni Vs F M Ganapati… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2269 WP No. 100098 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100098 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NAGARAJ GANAPATI BHAT @ MADGUNI AGED 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PETTY BUSINESS, R/O. SABGERI, YELLAPUR 581359

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S V YAJI.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

F M GANAPATI PARAMESHWAR BHAT SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

¶14

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶15

SMT. JAYASHREE VENKATARAMAN HEGDE, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, C/O. V N HEGDE,(ONGC), PLOT NO.12, GURUDATTA COLONY, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI 580023

¶16

SMT. VINAYA DINAKAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, C/O. DINAKAR V HEGDE, DOOR NO.12, SAI HOUSING SOCIETY, SECTOR 12, KHARGAR, NEW MUMBAI 400017

¶17

NAGARATNA KOM GANAPATI BHAT AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SABGERI, YELLAPUR 581359

¶18

VENUGOPAL GANAPATI BHAT AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/O. SABGERI, YELLAPUR 581359

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2269 WP No. 100098 of 2024

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON IA NO. VII (IA NO. XII) DATED. 02/12/2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRI9NCIPAL JMFC YELLAPUR IN O.S. NO. 4/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AT IA NO. VII (IA NO. XII) VIDE ANNEXURE-D MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶25

a. Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned order on I.A.No.VII(IA No. XII) dated: 02.12.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC Yellapur in O.S.No.4/2014 vide Annexure-G to the writ petition. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner at IA No.VII(IA No. XII) vide Annexure-D may kindly be allowed.

¶26

b. Issue a writ of mandamus , direction to the court below to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the petitioner under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity.

¶27

The petitioner had filed a suit in OS No.12/1999,

¶28

which subsequently came to be renumbered and is

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2269 WP No. 100098 of 2024

¶30

now pending as OS No.4/2014 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Yellapur. The suit was initially dismissed and challenged by the petitioner in RA No.16/2007. The petitioner had filed an application in IA No.7 therein under Order 23 Rule 3 seeking for a decree to be passed in terms of the alleged family settlement.

¶31

During the pendency of the said suit, the sisters who were parties to the suit had filed another suit in OS No.32/2012 before the Senior Civil Judge, Yellapur seeking for partition and declaration. RA No.16/2007 came to be allowed, the matter was remanded to a trial Court to pass appropriate orders on IA No.7 filed under Order 23 Rule 3.

¶32

The respondents having challenged the same in MSA No.678/2013, the said MSA was allowed. The judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the matter remanded to trial Court for holding an enquiry on IA No.7 and Order 23 Rule 3 as regard the alleged

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2269 WP No. 100098 of 2024

¶34

settlement. The trial Court rejected the said application challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶35

The application under Order 23 Rule 3 has been filed by the petitioner and only signed by the petitioner alleging that there is an agreement entered between all the parties which compromises the disputes. In my considered opinion Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code Civil procedure speaks of a situation where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing, signed by the parties.

¶36

There is a requirement for the compromise petition to be filed which is signed by all the parties. The dispute allegedly in the present matter being in regard to an agreement entered into outside Court and not inside Court, such agreement cannot be a

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2269 WP No. 100098 of 2024

¶38

subject matter of an application in Order 23 Rule 3, when it is denied by certain of the parties.

¶39

The parties having denied the execution of the agreement, the agreement having been entered into outside court and not in Court, I am of the considered opinion that petition under Order 23 Rule 3 is not maintainable by one of the parties and no order could be passed under Order 23 Rule 3 accepting an agreement allegedly entered outside Court to be a compromise in the matter.

¶40

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present matter. The petition stands

¶41

dismissed.

¶42

The trial Court to proceed with the trial of the matter.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

SR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Nagaraj Ganapati Bhat Alias Madguni v. F M Ganapati Parameshwar Bhat Since Deceased by Lrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraj Ganapati Bhat Alias Madguni v. F M Ganapati Parameshwar Bhat Since Deceased by Lrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Godavarthi Adinarayana S/O Chinnapallayya Vs the Canara Bank Branch Gangavathi

Raghunath Govind Achari. Vs State of Karnataka

Ashok S/O Dundappa Kupati Vs the Chief Secretary

M/S Kathyayane Electo Mac Vs the Manager

Narpat Mehata S/O Late Sukharaj Mehata Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Ashok Vs the State of Karnataka