Dismissed

Smt Pushpalata W/O Peerappa Chippalakatti v. Smt Shivalila W/O Shivaling Ludabude

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024WP/101818/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Lok-Adalat compromise decree granting the plaintiff access via a 16-foot road, claiming ignorance of the annexed sketch and coercion. The court found the conciliator explained terms in vernacular and both parties consented voluntarily; no grounds to interfere existed. Writ petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Pushpalata W/O Peerappa Chippalakatti Vs Smt… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7824 WP No. 101818 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.101818 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. PUSHPALATA W/O. PEERAPPA CHIPPALAKATTI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HARUGERI, TAL: RAIBAG, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶7

SRI. SHASHIKUMAR S/O. PEERAPPA CHIPPALAKATTI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O. HARUGERI, TAL: RAIBAG, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.06.21 12:01:30 +0530

¶12

SMT. SHIVALILA W/O. SHIVALING LUDABUDE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & H.H. WORK, R/O. HARUGERI, TAL: RAIBAG, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.06.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAIBAG, IN O.S.NO.688/2022 ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION AS IT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7824 WP No. 101818 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Captioned writ petition is filed assailing the compromise decree passed by Lok-Adalath in O.S.No.688/2022, on the file of leaned Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag. Respondent/plaintiff filed suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction asserting that he has got right of easement.

¶21

The records reveal that present petitioners who were arrayed as defendants and respondent/plaintiff filed a joint memo indicating that there is a possibility of settlement. At their request, the matter was referred to Lok-Adalath. Before Lok-Adalath, a joint compromise petition was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 R/w Sec.151 of

¶22

Code of Civil Procedure. In terms of the compromise, present petitioners/defendants agreed to leave 16 feet width road to enable respondent/plaintiff to have access to the main road situated on the western side. The same is

¶23

indicated in the sketch annexed to the compromise petition. Lok-Adalath having explained the terms of

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7824 WP No. 101818 of 2024

¶25

compromise in the vernacular language and after satisfying themselves that plaintiff and defendants have voluntarily come forward to settle the matter by giving a quietus to the dispute relating to the suit road, accepted the joint compromise petition. Accordingly, compromise decree is passed.

¶26

The petitioner’s contention that she is not aware of the sketch furnished along with the compromise petition, cannot be acceded to. Her contention that she is not aware of the compromise petition and that she was forced to enter into compromise, is not substantiated and no materials are placed on record.

¶27

The defendants argue that the sketch produced with the compromise petition was not within their knowledge at the time of the compromise. The plaintiff maintains that the terms of the compromise were explained to the defendants in the vernacular language by the conciliator, and the compromise was recorded only after ensuring the satisfaction of both parties. The record

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7824 WP No. 101818 of 2024

¶29

indicates that the conciliator explained the terms of the compromise in the vernacular language understood by the defendants. The compromise was recorded by the LokAdalat after verifying the satisfaction of both parties involved. The role of the High Court in interfering with the decrees and orders of the Lok-Adalat is limited. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the scope of interference by the High Courts in matters resolved by Lok-Adalats should be minimal, to uphold the spirit of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

¶30

The compromise recorded by Lok-Adalath at the

¶31

instance of the parties to the suit is to be placed at a higher pedestal. If the parties have voluntarily given a quietus to the dispute, they later cannot be permitted to retract from the voluntary settlement. The petitioners cannot re-litigate. No grounds are made out to interfere with the compromise decree passed by the Lok-Adalath.

¶32

Given the circumstances, the compromise

¶33

decree recorded by the Lok-Adalat appears to be valid and

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7824 WP No. 101818 of 2024

¶35

binding on both parties. The allegations by the defendants that the sketch was not within their knowledge do not hold merit in light of the conciliator's efforts to ensure that the terms were understood by all parties.

¶36

Writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed .

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Smt Pushpalata W/O Peerappa Chippalakatti v. Smt Shivalila W/O Shivaling Ludabude

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Pushpalata W/O Peerappa Chippalakatti v. Smt Shivalila W/O Shivaling Ludabude

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinayak Vs Agricultural

Pooja D/O Basappa Gaddeppanavar Vs the Department of Backward Classes Welfare Department

M.Anees S/O M.Vali Basha Vs the Aribtrator Chennai

Karnataka Krushi Sangha Vs the District Registrar

Balu S/O Bomanna Patil Vs Gangu W/O Laxman Bhekane

P Veeranagouda S/O P Ramanagouda Vs the Tahasildar