Dismissed

Sri Rajanna v. Sri Poojappa

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2024WP/42986/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a compromise in a partition suit as fraudulent. The High Court held the petitioner was bound by the voluntary compromise and refused to dismiss the writ based on fraud, reserving the non-enforceability issue due to unexecuted relinquishment deeds for the civil court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was entitled to raise the enforceability issue in the civil suit O.S. No.328/2017, but liberty given is revoked as that suit was withdrawn.

Sri Rajanna Vs Sri Poojappa — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9870 WP No. 42986 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 42986 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RAJANNA , AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, SON OF SRI. POOJAPPA, RESIDING AT CHIKKADASARAHALLI VILLAGE, MALAMACHANAHALLI POST, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 562 102.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHANKAR REDDY C, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. POOJAPPA, SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶13

SRI. KRISHNAPPA, SON OF SRI POOJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶14

SRI. ASHOK, SON OF SRI. POOJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶15

SRI. MUNIYAPPA, SON OF LATE SRI. MUNIYAPPA,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9870 WP No. 42986 of 2017

¶17

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶18

SRI. MANJUNATHA, SON OF LATE SRI. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶19

SRI. SHIVAPPA, SON OF LATE SRI. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶20

ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT CHINTHADAPI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 562 105.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. S.J. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R6; SRI. N. MURALI, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. A. RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; R1 - SERVED)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.12.2013 PASSED ON I.A. DATED 07.12.2013 MADE IN O.S.NO.407/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JDUGE AND J.M.F.C. AT SIDLAGHATTA, THE ANNX-G TO THIS W.P. AS THE SAME IS MADE ON FALSE REPRESENTATION AND A VIRTUAL FRAUD PLAYED ON THE COURT AND IS VOID AB INITIO AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

¶25

IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9870 WP No. 42986 of 2017

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has challenged the compromise

¶29

entered into in O.S.No.407/2013 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta concerning the land bearing Sy.No.64/1 of Chikkadasarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk.

¶30

(i) The facts in brief are that a suit in O.S.No.148/2012 was filed for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs' share in the land bearing Sy.Nos.26/51, 67/10 and 26/54 situated at Chintadapi village, Kasaba Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk. (ii) The said suit was compromised on 20.04.2012. (iii) Later another suit in O.S.No.407/2013 was filed for partition and separate possession in respect of land bearing Sy.No.64/1 of Chikkadasarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk. (iv) A compromise petition was filed in O.S.No.407/2013, in terms of which, the plaintiff No.2 therein was entitled to

¶31

1 acre 20 guntas while the defendant No.3/petitioner herein was entitled to 1 acre 20 guntas. The parties

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:9870 WP No. 42986 of 2017

¶34

identified the properties that fell to their share, consequent to which, the compromise petition was accepted and a preliminary decree was ordered to be drawn which was treated as a final decree. The copy of the decree was received by the plaintiffs on 13.01.2014 and the defendants on 16.01.2014. (v) Long thereafter, the petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.92/2017 for partition and separate possession of his 1/7^th share in all the aforesaid properties. (vi) Following this, a suit in O.S.No.328/2017 was filed by Manjunath, the plaintiff No.2 in O.S.No.407/2013, for declaration of his title and injunction in respect of 1.20 acres in Sy.No.64/1 of Chikkadasarahalli village. In the said suit, the compromise recorded in O.S.No.407/2013 was referred to. (vii) Following this, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the compromise entered into in O.S.No.407/2013 on the ground that the said compromise was obtained fraudulently and without his knowledge and notice. He further contended that the compromise reported in O.S.No.407/2013 was unenforceable, in view

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9870 WP No. 42986 of 2017

¶36

of a condition imposed by the Court while accepting the compromise namely, plaintiff Nos.1, 3 and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 in O.S.No.407/2013 had to execute a relinquishment deed in favour of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.3 for the compromise to be effectual. He contended that since the relinquishment deed is not executed, the said compromise is unenforceable.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously voiced the aforesaid contentions and contended that the petitioner was tricked into believing that the papers that he had signed were needed to draw up a final decree in O.S.No.148/2012. He contended that the fraudulent nature of the compromise is established from the fact that the same was done even before the suit summons was issued. He submits that notwithstanding this, the compromise was accepted, subject to the condition that relinquishment deeds were not executed and therefore it was not effectual.

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9870 WP No. 42986 of 2017

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted

¶40

that the petitioner cannot contend that he was not aware of the compromise and its terms etc. He submits that petitioner had engaged an advocate in O.S.No.407/2013, who participated in the compromise discussion and later filed a compromise petition before the Court. He submits

¶41

that the terms of compromise was explained to the petitioner by the members of the Lok-Adalath and the petitioner admitted that he had signed the compromise petition on his own volition. He submits that petitioner and his advocate had collected a copy of decree passed in O.S.No.407/2013 on 16.01.2014. However, the petitioner

¶42

has laid low for nearly 3 years and thereafter has filed O.S.No.92/2017. He therefore submits that it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner to now contend that the compromise reported in O.S.No.407/2013 was fraudulent and that he was not aware of the contents of the compromise petition. In so far as the condition attached to the acceptance of the compromise, learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute that the Lok Adalath had

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:9870 WP No. 42986 of 2017

¶45

imposed the condition that unless a relinquishment deed was executed, the compromise would not be effectual. He contended that when the preliminary decree was construed as final decree, there was no need to execute any relinquishment deed and the parties had in fact got the decree registered in accordance with law on

¶46

05.04.2018.

¶47

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

¶48

The suit in O.S.No.407/2013 was filed for partition and separate possession in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.64/1 and before the suit summons returnable by 17.01.2024 in the suit was served, the suit was advanced. The petitioner herein and his family members had engaged the services of an advocate named Mr.C.V.Manjunath. On the request of the plaintiffs and the defendants, the suit was referred to Lok Adalath. At the Lok Adalath, the petitioner and the respondents were

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9870 WP No. 42986 of 2017

¶50

present and their respective advocates were also present. The members constituting the Lok Adalath had explained the terms of compromise to all the parties in kannada and the petitioner and his family members accepted the compromise and its terms. They also accepted that they had voluntarily entered into such a compromise. Based upon this the compromise petition was accepted and a preliminary decree was ordered to be drawn. However, as no further steps was required to be taken, as parties had identified their respective properties that fell to their share, the Lok Adalath passed an order to treat the preliminary decree as a final decree. The Lok Adalath added an additional condition that the compromise would be binding only when the plaintiff Nos.1, 3, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 executed appropriate release deeds in favour of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.3. The additional condition imposed by the Lok Adalath to accept the compromise was not agreed upon between the parties.

¶51

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:9870 WP No. 42986 of 2017

¶52

Be that as it may, since the parties have admitted the condition imposed by the Lok Adalath as stated supra and have not sought for alteration of that condition, it should be construed that the parties had understood that they would execute relinquishment deed in favour of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.3 in O.S.No.407/2013. However, the question in the present case is whether the compromise was fraudulent and not whether the compromise was enforceable. They are two different things and are not dependent on each other. Since it is clear that the defendant No.3/petitioner herein had accepted the compromise along with his family members with eyes wide open and also knowing fully well the consequences, he cannot now resile from the compromise and claim that the said compromise was fraudulent or was brought about without his notice and knowledge. This apart, the petitioner/defendant No.3 having received a copy of the decree on 16.01.2014, unnaturally kept quite till the year 2017 when he filed O.S.No.92/2017. This, therefore speaks voluminously of the oblique motive that

¶53

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:9870 WP No. 42986 of 2017

¶54

the petitioner/defendant No.3 is trying to backtrack from the compromise reported in O.S.No.407/2013. Therefore,

¶55

he cannot now contend that the compromise in O.S.No.407/2013 was fraudulent. As the parties have entered into such a compromise voluntarily and without any coercion, threat or undue influence, the said compromise is binding not only on the petitioner/defendant No.3 but also on all the other concerned respondents. However, the question whether the compromise was enforceable or not in view of non compliance of conditions attached to the acceptance of compromise i.e., the same has to be established before the concerned Court. Whether non registration of a relinquishment deed by the plaintiff Nos.1 and 3, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 in O.S.No.407/2013 itself would render the compromise fraudulent or whether the decree which was registered is sufficient or not are all questions which have to be decided by that Court.

¶56

11 -

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:9870 WP No. 42986 of 2017

¶58

Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel

¶59

for the petitioner/defendant No.3 that the compromise reported in O.S.No.407/2013 was fraudulent and brought without his notice or knowledge is liable to be rejected.

¶60

Consequently, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is entitled to raise the contention in O.S.No.328/2017 before Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Siddlaghatta, that the compromise reported in O.S.No.407/2013 is not enforceable in view of the non compliance of the condition attached to the compromise. The respondents are entitled to suitably defend the said contention.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

MH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK

¶63

12 -

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:9870 WP No. 42986 of 2017

¶65

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶66

[SRI RAJANNA VS. SRI POOJAPPA AND OTHERS]

¶67

RNJ

¶68

19.04.2024 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶69

ORDER ON 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO'

¶70

Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 6 have moved this petition for 'Being spoken to' for a clarification. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 6 submits that inadvertently it could not be brought to the notice of the Court that O.S.No.328/2017 was withdrawn by the petitioner herein on 12.09.2019. Based on the submission that the suit was pending consideration by respondent No.5 in this petition, the petition was disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions in O.S.No.328/2017, as the compromise reported in O.S.No.407/2013 was not enforceable.

¶71

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 6.

¶72

Now that it is stated that O.S.No.328/2017 was withdrawn, liberty granted to the petitioner in paragraph 9 of the order dated 11.03.2024 shall not be given effect to.

¶73

This order will have to be read in conjunction with the order dated 11.03.2024.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri Rajanna v. Sri Poojappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajanna v. Sri Poojappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Komala Vs Sri G S Mahendra

Sri. Dwarkanath G Vs M/S Multi Pearl Apartment Owners Association

K. a. Umesh Vs the Secretary

T R Kishore Kumar Vs P Annaiah

P Kailasam Vs Savirasa Tele Films

Rakesh Vs Sureshrao