Writ petition challenging an order dismissing an application to set aside a compromise decree in a partition suit. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to prove allegations of fraud and coercion and dismissed the writ petition.
The writ petition was dismissed; the impugned order setting aside the compromise decree remains valid.
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:30796 WP No. 5826 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 5826 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.T.R.MANJULAMMA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, W/O T.GOPALAIAH R/AT NO.68/1, S.R.NILAYA 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, GURU LAYOUT TUMKUR-572 101
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K.R.RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:30796 WP No. 5826 of 2017
(RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE THE LR’S OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.1)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND ALSO FOR R1 (A-B) R2 & R4 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED
V/O/D 31.10.2019, NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O/D 07.12.2022, PETITION AGENT – R1 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 05.01.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVI JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMKURU IN O.S.NO.328/2007 ON IA NO.IV PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE W.P.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 13.06.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
NC: 2024:KHC:30796 WP No. 5826 of 2017
CAV ORDER
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.328/2007 dated 05.01.2017 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit.
case that after filing of the suit and receiving notice, the defendant made efforts through some third persons putting forth a proposal for a compromise by taking nominal share by the plaintiff in the suit schedule property and she has refused the said proposal. Thereafter, when her husband was out of station, the defendant accompanied with some bad elements came to her house and pressurized her to agree for the compromise. They have threatened her and to her family members with dire consequences, if she do not agree for the compromise, they compelled her to accept for the compromise. On the next day the defendant had took plaintiff to the office of her advocate along with the bad elements and apprised the advocate about the terms and conditions of the compromise. Her advocate without applying his mind properly agreed for
NC: 2024:KHC:30796 WP No. 5826 of 2017
unfair and unjust compromise without enquiring the matter in detail to satisfy himself with such compromise. When her advocate casually asked her as to whether she is willing for compromise, she could not object for the same, for the reason that she was under constant threat. Thereafter she was taken to the office of the another advocate of the choice of the defendants, drafted the compromise petition under their instruction. The plaintiff as there was no other option had to sign the compromise petition unwillingly and without free consent for the compromise. She was not allowed to go anywhere to consult anybody. On the same day, she was taken to court and filed the compromise petition under threat and fear. When the court asked her whether she was willing for compromise, she could not object and the court recorded the terms of the compromise which is prepared under the instructions of the defendant by obtaining the consent of the plaintiffs by using threat, coercion and undue influence. According to her, the said compromise order and decree is not binding on her and came up with an application to set aside the compromise decree.
NC: 2024:KHC:30796 WP No. 5826 of 2017
the process of the court by filing the present application. Hence, prayed to dismiss the I.A.
examination that the said counsel is learned and he has done his job as an advocate. She has also admitted that he has not committed any fault in discharging his duties, when the plaintiff had appeared through learned counsel. Before preparing the compromise petition, signing the compromise petition by the plaintiff, presenting the same and before the open court, there were several opportunities to the plaintiff either to express such fraud, coercion or mis-representation committed by the defendant to her counsel or before the court. But, it is not the case of the plaintiff that she has made any of the efforts. The plaintiff has not made any allegation fraud, coercion, misrepresentation committed by her advocate while compromising the suit or her advocates has acted against the interest of the plaintiff colluding with the defendants. Such being the circumstances, it would only go to show that fraud, coercion, mis-representation has been concocted by the plaintiff in order to stick on to the property for a long time as possible. Therefore the said story of fraud, coercion or misrepresentation is bereft of any material. The court has also perused the order sheet dated 06.12.2007, where it is observed that as follows:
“both the parties are present, their counsels present. Parties filed compromise petition under Order 23 Rule
NC: 2024:KHC:30796 WP No. 5826 of 2017
3 of CPC. Contents of compromise petition read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the same. Hence draw the decree in terms of compromise petition filed by the parties. “.
The trial court looking at all these aspects has held that it is absolutely a malafide plea taken by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has failed to prove that compromise dated 06.12.2007 is an outcome of threat, coercion and undue influence as alleged and accordingly dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved there by the plaintiff is before this court.
suit is for partition and the share has to be given proportionately according to their entitlement otherwise the compromise petition should show the reason why it is disproportionate. The case on hand clearly shows that it is not equitable partition and same is not sustainable in law. It is submitted that immediately after the compromise decree, a legal notice was issued under what circumstances the consent was obtained and asked for her share and also filed a suit in O.S.NO.18/2008 and subsequently an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC is filed before the same court. It is stated that the petitioner is a uneducated rustic village lady and taking
advantage of her old age and in the absence of her husband in the home, subjected her to threat and coercion and she had no option but to compromise. It is stated that there are 40 sites and petitioner is allotted only two sites. If it is equally partitioned the plaintiff would have got 20 sites, this itself clearly shows that there is fraud played on the plaintiff. The court below failed to consider all these aspects and dismissed the petition.
1 AIR 2022 SC 238
NC: 2024:KHC:30796 WP No. 5826 of 2017
position that where an allegation of fraud is made, the said allegation would have to be proved strictly. The terms of a compromise decree, cannot be avoided, unless the allegation of fraud has been proved. In the absence of any conclusive proof as to fraud on the part of the objectors, the compromise decree cannot be set aside. Learned counsel submits that the trial court had rightly dismissed the petition. He has also relied on another Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Murat (dead) by legal representatives –Vs- Satyawati and others2 . The learned counsel submits that when the grave allegation of fraud and coercion are asserted it has to be proved. Without proving the same, just like that the compromise decree cannot be set aside. It is submitted that if in this fashion if every person comes up before the court after a compromise decree is passed as an after thought there is no end to the litigation.
2 (2015) 5 SCC 687
partition. She had filed the suit for partition in the year 2007, compromise decree was passed on 06.12.2007. Legal notice was issued on 02.01.2008. The final decree was passed on 24.01.2008. Reply was given by the respondent here in on 31.01.2008. It is the case of the plaintiff that her husband is out of the city and with that threat she had been taken to the Advocate’s office from there to some other Advocate’s office and they have entered into a compromise and the same is filed before the court and the compromise decree is passed. When she is taking a stand of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the allegations and the averments have to be specific and she has to specifically state that what is the date on which she was taken to the advocate’s office and on what date her husband is out of town, when he has come back all these particular aspects have to be stated. All that she has narrated might not have happened on the same day. It has happened over a span of couple of days. That aspect she has not stated just because in the compromise that is entered, here the defendant is getting more share than the plaintiff that itself cannot be a ground to come to the conclusion that there is fraud, coercion or undue influence played by the defendant. On these grounds when a
NC: 2024:KHC:30796 WP No. 5826 of 2017
petition is filed the burden lies on the party who pleads to discharge the burden.
TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59
SD/JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an alleged compromise decree obtained by fraud, coercion, or undue influence can be set aside without cogent and specific proof of such allegations.
Whether the burden of proof regarding fraud and coercion lies on the party alleging it to discharge the same.
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the application to set aside the compromise decree due to lack of proof.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Srinivasappa and others -Vs- M. Mallamma and othersReferred¶56
K. Srinivasappa and others -Vs- M. Mallamma and others 1 AIR 2022 SC 238 · Who else cites this
Shiv Murat (dead) by legal representatives –Vs- Satyawati and othersReferred¶56
Shiv Murat (dead) by legal representatives –Vs- Satyawati and others 2 (2015) 5 SCC 687 · Who else cites this
SMT.T.R.MANJULAMMA
T.R.NARAYANA MURTHY (LATE) & ORS
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
