Dismissed

Kasturewwa W/O Shrishail Jakkannavar v. Chikkappa a/F Shrishail Jakkannavar

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024WP/101539/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Lok Adalat permitting the withdrawal of a suit. The Court held that since the petitioner was a party to a prior compromise decree that was not questioned, and the memo to the Lok Adalat only stated a settlement before village elders rather than with the Adalat itself, the question of setting aside the order di

What did the court decide?

Writ petition challenging the order of the Lok Adalat allowing withdrawal of the suit is dismissed.

Kasturewwa W/O Shrishail Jakkannavar Vs Chikkappa… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12822 WP No. 101539 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 101539 OF 2015 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KASTUREWWA W/O. SHRISHAIL JAKKANNAVAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O. C/O. CHINNAWWA W/O. NINGAPPA KATTIMANI @ HURAKADLI, CIHCHANUR, TAL: RAMDURG, DIST: BAGALKOT,

¶10

SINCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS.

¶11

1(A) SMT. MALLAVVA BASAPPA YARGATTI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. CHINCHANUR, 591114, TAL: RAMADURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. M.M. NAIKWADI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶17

CHIKKAPPA A/F SHRISHAIL JAKKANNAVAR, AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: NIL, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS M/G NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL FATHER VITHAL MUTTAPPA JAKKANNAVAR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIROL, TAL: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶18

BASAPPA S/O. KADAPPA JAKKANNAVAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIROL, TAL: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYASWAMY, ADV. FOR R2; R1-SERVED)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12822 WP No. 101539 of 2015

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 22/3/2014 PASSED IN O.S.183/2010 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL AND NON JUDICIAL CONCILIATORS OF TALUKA LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY MUDHOL VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

¶25

Heard the petitioners’ counsel and also the counsel

¶26

appearing for respondent No.2.

¶27

The petitioners have sought for the relief of quashing the order dated 22.03.2014 passed in O.S.No.183/2010 on the file of Judicial and Non Judicial Conciliators of Taluka Legal Service Authority, Mudhol vide Annexure-E.

¶28

The factual aspects of the case is that the respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.183/2010 by claiming that he is the adopted son of the petitioner herein. The present petitioner filed written statement and stoutly denied that the first respondent is her adopted son

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12822 WP No. 101539 of 2015

¶30

and the alleged ceremony of adoption was also stoutly denied by the petitioner herein. The petitioner also contended that there is no compromise decree passed in O.S.No.34/2010 and hence prayed to dismiss the suit. It is the contention of the petitioner that though there is recital in the compromise decree that the amount is paid to the petitioner, the second respondent has not paid the amount mentioned in the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.34/2010. The petitioner specifically contended that after the death of her husband, she alone has succeeded to the estate of her husband and she is accordingly absolute owner of the suit property. This being the fact, the respondent No.1 filed a memo on 07.03.2014 stating that matter is settled and requested the Court to refer the matter to the Loka Adalath and the Court having accepted the memo, dismissed the suit as settled out of the Court and the same has been challenged before this Court.

¶31

The counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that Lok Adalath vide Annexure-E, passed an

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12822 WP No. 101539 of 2015

¶33

order with regard to permitting to withdraw the suit and the same is erroneous and the same is in collusion between the first respondent and second respondent only to deprive the legitimate right of petitioner herein and hence it requires interference.

¶34

Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 files statement of objections and also contend that the original petitioner was a party to the compromise in O.S.No.34/2010 wherein compromise decree was passed and she has received an amount of Rs.10,20,000/- and on receipt of the said amount, compromised the dispute and relinquished her right in respect of the properties. The compromise decree was granted on 12.08.2010. The same has not been questioned and now the plaintiff has withdrawn the suit before the Lok Adalat and no compromise was entered before the Lok Adadalat. Only a memo was filed and the same was taken on record and referred the matter to the Lok Adalath wherein the memo was accepted. The said

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12822 WP No. 101539 of 2015

¶36

memo clearly discloses that the parties have entered into compromise as per the terms of memo before the elders of their village and matter is settled before the elders and not drawn any decree in the Lok Adhalat. When such being the case, the same cannot be questioned before this Court.

¶37

Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and also taking into note of the contention of the petitioner that there was a decree in terms of O.S.No.34/2010 and the first respondent has not paid the said amount mentioned in the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.34/2010 and the same has not been questioned before any of the authority. The petitioner filed written statement contending that the respondent No.1 is not her adopted son. It is now contended that no such amount is paid but the compromise in O.S.No.34/2010 is not questioned wherein the petitioner was also a party to the compromise in O.S.No.34/2010. Unless the said compromise is questioned, the question of setting the side the order

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12822 WP No. 101539 of 2015

¶39

passed by the Lok Adalath does not arise since the petitioner was a party to the compromise and the memo is also filed before the Lok Adalath stating that the matter has been settled before the elders and not before the Lok Adalath. It is important to note that no compromise is recorded before the Lok Adalat wherein only the memo was accepted which was filed seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit filed by the respondent No.1. When such being the case, question of setting aside the order as sought does not arise and there is no merit in the writ petition.

¶40

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶41

following :

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶44

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶45

NAA CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Kasturewwa W/O Shrishail Jakkannavar v. Chikkappa a/F Shrishail Jakkannavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasturewwa W/O Shrishail Jakkannavar v. Chikkappa a/F Shrishail Jakkannavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiran S Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivanand Shetty S/O Giriyappa Shetty Vs Vivekasri Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamit

Ramanna and Ors. Vs the State

Narayan Sannakusa Harikant, Vs Gajanan Shivaram Bhat

Mayappa S/O Ramu Atapade Vs Yallappa S/O Shivappa Atapade

Mahadevappa S/O Irappanna @ Virupanna @ Virupaxi Basappa @ Vakkliger Vs Competent Authority