Dismissed

B G Ramalingesh S/O Late B.G. Basanna, v. Fakkiravva W/O Murigeppa Kodi

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2024WP/112539/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner assailed a compromise recorded by the Lok Adalath in a specific performance suit. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had voluntarily signed the joint memo and withdrawn the suit, making the alleged fraud unsubstantiated and the petition devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; no relief granted.

B G Ramalingesh S/O Late B.G. Basanna, Vs Fakkiravva… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8388 WP No. 112539 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 112539 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SHRI. B.G.RAMALINGESH S/O. LATE B.G. BASANNA, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: KAMADOD, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI.B.M.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

SMT. FAKKIRAVVA W/O. MURIGEPPA KODI, SINCE DECEASED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.05.2024 R2 AND R3 ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R1 ARE ALREADY ON RECORD.

¶10

ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶11

KUMARI. GOURAVVA D/O. MURIGEPPA KODI AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: YALIGAR ONI, SHIGGAON, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.

¶12

KUMARI. GEETA D/O. MURIGEPPA KODI AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: YALIGAR ONI, SHIGGAON, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.N.P.VIVEK MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; R1-DECEASED)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & CJM & ADDL.MACT COURT, HAVERI AT: HAVERI IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.74/2011 DATED 10.01.2014 BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND RESTORE THE SUIT ON ITS ORIGINAL STAGE PRODUCED AT VIDE ANNEXURE-D BE PASSED.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8388 WP No. 112539 of 2014

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The captioned petition is filed by the plaintiff assailing the compromise recorded by the Lok Adalath in O.S.No.74/2011.

¶19

Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶20

The petitioner/plaintiff has instituted a suit for specific performance based on the alleged agreement of sale dated 07.01.2010. Pending consideration of the captioned petition, a joint memo is filed by the plaintiff and defendants and the matter is referred to the Lok Adalath. The plaintiff along with his counsel on record has signed the joint memo and in the joint memo, it is stated that, the matter is amicably settled out of the Court at the intervention of the village elders and therefore, the plaintiff indicated that, he does not wish to prosecute the suit. Accepting the memo, the suit is dismissed and the Court ordered for refund of the Court fee.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8388 WP No. 112539 of 2014

¶23

Petitioner’s contention is that, this joint memo is

¶24

not signed by the defendants and therefore, he contends that the compromise recorded is not lawful.

¶25

This Court is not inclined to accede the said arguments. The plaintiff is alleging fraud on the ground that, the defendant was not present at the time when the suit was withdrawn. The records clearly reveals that, the plaintiff along with his counsel have duly signed the joint memo as well as in the order sheet before the Lok Adalath. The plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn the suit indicating that the matter is settled out of Court.

¶26

If these significant details are looked into, this Court is not inclined to grant any reliefs. The petitioner having voluntarily withdrawn the suit with the effective assistance from the counsel on record cannot be permitted to re-agitate. This suit is withdrawn on 10.01.2014 and this petition is kept pending for almost ten years. The petition is devoid of merits. The fraud alleged in the petition is not substantiated. If the petitioner has signed the joint memo

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8388 WP No. 112539 of 2014

¶29

and has withdrawn the suit unilaterally, the petitioner cannot retract from the statement and allege that, there is a fraud.

¶30

The writ petition is devoid of merits and

¶31

accordingly dismissed.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

SVH

¶34

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

B G Ramalingesh S/O Late B.G. Basanna, v. Fakkiravva W/O Murigeppa Kodi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B G Ramalingesh S/O Late B.G. Basanna, v. Fakkiravva W/O Murigeppa Kodi

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

Smt.Indu C Tandel W/O Chandru Tanel Vs the Deputy Commissioner

G. K. Basavaraj S/O Late D.K.Gopal Vs Emminganoor Nagaraj S/O Ramachandrappa

Sri. Abubkar Maktam Hussain Tatagar Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Smt.Bhagirati Vs Sri.Narayan Manjunath Hegde

G.V.P.R. Engineers Ltd. Vs Hubli Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Sri.Chandragouda S/O. Ramanagouda Patil Vs Smt.Indirabai W/O. Dyamanagouda Patil