High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging a compromise decree in OS No.146/2010. The court held that the compromise will not adversely affect the petitioner's rights in a prior filing (FDP No.13/2021 and RSA No.294/2006) regarding an interim partition decree.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14888 WP No. 106780 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO.106780 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka
ALL ARE R/AT: WARD NO.8, BANAHATTI, TQ: RABAKAVI – BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 10, R/AT: MANGALWAR PETH, TAMBOLI ONI,
SRI VEERABHDRESHWAR TEMPLE PETH, BANAHATTI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.V.KERUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R5 TO R9; R3, R4 AND R10 ARE SERVED)
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 WRIT OR DIRECTION AND SETASIDE THE COMPROMISE DECREE PASSED BY THE BANAHATTI LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE AND CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI DATED 16.08.2010 IN O.S.NO.146 OF 2010, COPY AS PER ANNEXUREK AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
Heard Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.V.Kerur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 to 9.
the plaintiff has been granted 2/9th share in the suit property and the said decree being the subject matter of
RA No.146/2001, RSA No.294/2006 and FDP No.13/2021, the filing of OS No.146/2010 and the subsequent compromise entered in the said suit is erroneous and liable to be interfered with.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14888 WP No. 106780 of 2015
Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
HMB CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging a compromise decree in a subsequent suit is maintainable when rights of the petitioner are pending in antecedent litigation.
Whether a compromise decree in a suit against an adjacent land owner affects the rights of the petitioner in a prior partition decree.
DHONDIBA S/O. VITTAL BAKARE, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LR'S
VISHNU RAMACHANDRA BAKARE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
SATTENAPPA S/O. GURUPADAPPA KESARAGOPPA @ JAGADAL
C.M. POONACHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
