Allowed

Ramu Bhimappa Chinchali v. Bhimappa Laxman Chinchali

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024WP/104152/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka ALLOWED the writ petition seeking to quash a compromise decree dated 02.05.2015 in O.S.No.404/2015. The court ruled that the decree was obtained fraudulently behind the back of the petitioner, who was a party to a prior suit, and the matter of legal heirship requires adjudication in the earlier suit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. The order dated 02.05.2015 in O.S.No.404/2015 passed by I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag is quashed.

Ramu Bhimappa Chinchali Vs Bhimappa Laxman Chinchali — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13025 WP No. 104152 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH WRIT PETITION NO. 104152 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

RAMU BHIMAPPA CHINCHALI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

BHIMAPPA LAXMAN CHINCHALI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

SIDDAPPA LAXMAN CHINCHALI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶11

SAROJA

¶12

HANGARAKI

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

RUKMAVVA RAMSEN YADRAVI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NAGANUR, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

SMT. LIMBEVVA W/O. MALLAPPA MALALI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. LAXMAN CHINCHALI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13025 WP No. 104152 of 2016

¶18

SMT. RATNAWWA W/O. BHIMAPPA CHINCHALI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶19

SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. BHIMAPPA CHINCHALI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. YALPARATTI ROAD HARUGERI,

¶20

TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶21

SADASHIV BHIMAPPA CHINCHALI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YALPARATTI ROAD HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶22

SHIVANAND BHIMAPPA CHINCHALI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YALPARATTI ROAD HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶23

NAGAPPA BHIMAPPA CHINCHALI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YALPARATTI ROAD HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. M.J. PEERJADE, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. CHITRA M. GOUNDALKAR, ADV. FOR R2 & R6; SRI. KISHOR S. SUTAR, ADV. FOR R8-R10; R4, R5 & R7 ARE SERVED)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED:02.05.2015, PASSED BY 1^ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG IN O.S.NO.404/2015, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E2.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13025 WP No. 104152 of 2016

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

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

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶32

learned counsels for respondents No.1, 2 and 6, 8 to 10.

¶33

unrepresented.

¶34

The present writ petition is filed praying this Court to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the order dated 02.05.2015 passed by I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag in O.S.No.404/2015 produced at Annexure-E2 and grant such other reliefs as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶35

The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that he was plaintiff in O.S.No.1304/2013 wherein respondents No.1, 2, 3, 4 are defendants in the suit. The respondent No.5 is defendant in O.S.No.404/2015 and respondent No.6 is also a party to

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13025 WP No. 104152 of 2016

¶37

O.S.No.1304/2013 and respondent No.7 is defendant No.2 in subsequent suit O.S.No.404/2015 and respondents No.8, 9 and 10 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.404/2015.

¶38

The counsel would vehemently contend that when the plaintiff has filed the suit on 17.12.2013, the defendants No.1 to 5 were represented through counsel on 31.01.2014 and they were having knowledge about the suit filed by the petitioner for the relief of partition and separate possession and they joined hands with respondents No.8 to 10 in getting the compromise decree with them with an intention to deceive the rights of the plaintiff.

¶39

The counsel also vehemently contends that the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.404/2015 was hurriedly compromised even without waiting for notice to be served on the defendants therein and they voluntarily appeared and compromised the same and the same clearly discloses that only with an intention to defraud the

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13025 WP No. 104152 of 2016

¶41

petitioner the compromise was entered between the

¶42

parties and hence it requires to be quashed.

¶43

Counsel appearing for respondents No.8 to 10 would submit that they are not parties to O.S.No.1304/2013 and they were not aware of the same and though the defendants No.1 to 5 were represented through counsel in this matter, the counsel is absent and also he does not dispute the fact that they were aware of the fact before entering into the compromise with the respondents No.8 to 10 and not denied the same. Annexure-E1 is the copy of the compromise between respondents No.8 to 10, who are the plaintiffs and other defendants who are the respondents in the said suit and the said compromise was also entered behind the back of the petitioner herein.

¶44

Having perused the records and Annexure-E1 and E2 i.e. copy of the compromise and also the decree obtained, the same is behind the back of plaintiff and counsel appearing for respondents No.8 to 10 also not

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13025 WP No. 104152 of 2016

¶46

disputes the fact that now they are already on record in

¶47

the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.1304/2013.

¶48

When such being the case and the decree is obtained behind the back of the plaintiff that too fraudulently and having taken note about the suit was filed earlier against the defendants No.1 to 5, Annexure-E2 requires to be quashed as sought in the writ petition. In view of the submission of respondents No.8 to 10 that they are also party in O.S.No.1304/2013, if any dispute with regard to the legal heirs of one Bhimappa since the plaintiff also claims that he is the legal heir of Bhimappa and respondents No.8 to 10 also claim that they are the legal heirs of the said Bhimappa, the same has to be adjudicated in suit in O.S.No.1304/2013.

¶49

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13025 WP No. 104152 of 2016

¶54

Order dated 02.05.2015 passed by I Additional Civil

¶55

Judge and JMFC, Raibag in O.S.No.404/2015 produced at

¶56

Annexure-E2 is quashed.

¶57

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶58

SH CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Ramu Bhimappa Chinchali v. Bhimappa Laxman Chinchali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu Bhimappa Chinchali v. Bhimappa Laxman Chinchali

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

Rayaji Hospital and Research Institute Vs Satish S/O. Anandrao Paltankar

Shri. Laxman S/O. Chayappa Sonawan, Vs Shri. Ramu S/O. Chayappa Sonawan

Srikant S/O Anant Rao Desai, Vs the Belagavi Urban Development Authority

Ahmedraza Pathan S/O Mohddin Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Anand S/O Appa Mali Vs the Deputy Registrar of Chits

Nagarj S/O. Gangadhar Horadi Vs the State of Karnataka