Dismissed

Smt Roopa Devi v. Smt. Savithramma

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2024WP/832/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a compromise decree from a Lok Adalath. The petitioner alleged coercion and ignorance of document contents by her father. The Court held the award is final, binding, and valid as all parties admitted its terms before a Judicial Officer.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking to set aside the Lok Adalath award is dismissed.

Smt Roopa Devi Vs Smt. Savithramma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:8339 WP No. 832 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.832/2021(GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. ROOPADEVI D/O. SRI K. V. NAGARAJU, W/O. SRI VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.36, NEAR SOLLAPURADHAMMA TEMPLE, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU – 560 091.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI C. G. GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MANJANNA MANJANNA E E Date: 2024.03.04 11:30:14 +0530

¶13

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA D/O SRI VENKATARAMARAPPA, W/O SRI VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.145, 6^TH A CROSS, CSB LAYOUT, KASAVANAHALLI, SARJAPURA ROAD, CHAMALARAM ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 035.

¶14

K. V. NAGARAJU S/O. SRI VENKATARAMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶15

SMT. RAJAMMA FIRST WIFE OF SRI K. V. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶16

SMT. CHANDRAMMA SECOND WIFE OF SRI K. V. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:8339 WP No. 832 of 2021

¶18

¶19

SRI DHANANJAYA S/O SRI K V NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶20

THE SECOND TO THE FIFTH R/AT POLICE LAYOUT, 2^ND PHASE, NEAR ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, K. VINAYAKA NAGARA, KACHANAYAKANAHALLI, HENNAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 105.

¶21

SMT SARITHA D/O. SRI K. V. NAGARAJU, W/O SRI YOGESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.34, OPPOSITE IBIS HOTEL, 1^ST CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, VAJPAI NAGAR, GARVEPALYA, BENGALURU – 560 068.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI M. J. ALVA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R4, R5 AND R6; R3 IS SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED under article 227 PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF OS NO.188/2017 IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL. SET ASIDE THE AWARD DTated 04.03.2017, PASSED BY THE LOK ADALATH IN O.S NO.188/2017 IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL VIDE ANNX-A.SET ASIDE THE DECREE DTD 04.03.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.188/2017 IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL AT ANNX-B.DIRECT RE-HEARING OF OS NO.188/2017 IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL and etc.,

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:8339 WP No. 832 of 2021

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner being defendant No.6 in OS.No.188/2017 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal Bangalore Urban District is seeking grant of writ of certiorari to quash the compromise decree dated 04.03.2017.

¶29

Heard Sri. C.G.Gopalaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.J.Alva, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the materials on record.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.1 as plaintiff filed the suit OS.No.188/2017 against the petitioner and other respondents. When the matter was fixed for appearance of parties on 04.03.2017, the petitioner was called by respondent No.2 who is her father. Taking advantage of this position as father, he took her to Anekal and asked her to sign on papers in the office of an Advocate. Petitioner without enquiring and going through the contents of the papers, subscribed her signatures. Later she was taken to trial Court and from their before the Lok Adalath, where she was made to sign on other papers. But the fact remains that the petitioner was not knowing the contents of

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:8339 WP No. 832 of 2021

¶32

any of those documents, she was given to understand that she is being given equal share in the properties belonging to the family. Believing the words of her father, being defendant No.2, petitioner subscribed her signatures.

¶33

Learned counsel submitted that even though the petitioner was given three or four residential sites, as her share, she was not given equal share in the agricultural property. On the other hand, the entire agricultural property was given to the share of defendant No.4, who is her brother. Only after coming to know about the same, the petitioner has filed this petition invoking the writ jurisdiction under Section 227 of Constitution of India.

¶34

Learned counsel submits that even though the petitioner does not dispute the fact that she is the signatory to the compromise petition before the Lok adalath, her contention is that she was kept in dark about the contents of the compromise petition and the compromise effected was not equitable. Therefore, she prays for allowing the petition.

¶35

Per-contra , learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4

¶36

to 6 opposing the petition submitted that the suit

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:8339 WP No. 832 of 2021

¶39

OS.No.188/2017 was filed seeking partition and separate possession of the family properties. All the parties have came forward to settle the dispute amicably. The petitioner had also appointed an advocate by signing the vakalath. Both the learned counsels requested the Court to refer the dispute to Lok Adalath. Accordingly, the matter was referred to Lok Adalath. All the parties to the suit including the petitioner appeared before the conciliators and admitted the compromise petition which was read over to them. Accordingly, they subscribed their signatures in the presence of the conciliators. Hence, the matter was settled between the parties as per the order dated 04.03.2017.

¶40

Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the compromise petition, several release deeds were executed by either parties in favour of this petitioner. One such registered release deed dated 28.04.2017 is produced before this Court. Under the said release deed, the petitioner is the beneficiary. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was not defrauded by any of the parties. Leaned counsel also submitted that when petitioner categorically admits she appointing an advocate, appearing before the Court requesting to refer the

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:8339 WP No. 832 of 2021

¶42

matter to the Lok Adalath and again appearing before Lok Adalath and admitting the contents of compromise petition before the conciliator, it will not enable her to move this Court for seeking quashing of the compromise decree on any grounds. There is no fraud, misrepresentation, as she was taken part and subscribed her signature to the compromise petition and also the order sheet. The petitioner is not making any allegations either against the counsel representing her or against the conciliators, who were there in the Lok Adalath. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶43

The petitioner is the daughter of defendant No.1, who is respondent No.2 in the present petition. The entire allegation made by the petitioner is only against her father-defendant No.1. She has no such allegation against any of the other parties, including the counsel represented or the conciliators, who recorded the compromise petition.

¶44

The order sheet of the trial Court discloses that on

¶45

04.03.2017, when the matter was called before the trial Court, both plaintiff and defendants were present and they have filed

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:8339 WP No. 832 of 2021

¶48

the joint memo requesting to refer the matter to the Lok Adalath. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath. The order sheet further discloses that on the same day, the matter was taken up before the Lok Adalath where both plaintiff and defendants along with their counsel were present and they have filed the compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. The order sheet also discloses that the contents of the compromise petition was read over to the parties and they have admitted that the parties have agreed to the terms of the compromise petition as true and correct. The parties were identified by their respective counsels and after being satisfied that the terms of the compromise petition are not against any law, the same was accepted by the conciliators, one of them is a Judicial Officer. Under these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that she was not knowing the contents of the documents cannot be accepted. Interestingly, the petitioner is not making any allegations against the Advocate, who represented her before the Court as well as before the Lok Adalath.

¶49

As per the terms of the joint compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, the petitioner who was arrayed

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:8339 WP No. 832 of 2021

¶51

as defendant No.6 was allotted with plot Nos.15, 123, 209, 308 situated at Kammasandra village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk Bangalore Urban District and the agricultural land measuring 5 guntas in Sy.No.102 situated Kachanayakanagalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. It is also pertinent to note that admittedly, the other parties to the suit got executed the registered release deed dated 28.04.2017 in favour of this petitioner in respect of the property that were allotted in her favour. None of these documents are disputed by the petitioner. Under such circumstances the only contention that she was blackmailed by her father either emotionally or otherwise and at that time she was not knowing the contents of the compromise petition, cannot be a ground to be accepted this Court to quash the compromise petition, which is already acted upon by all the parties concerned.

¶52

Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 deals with the award passed by the Lok Adalath. Sub Section (1) states that such award of Lak Adalath shall be deemed to be a decree of Civil Court. As per Sub Section (2), such award made by Lok Adalath shall be final and binding on all the

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:8339 WP No. 832 of 2021

¶54

¶55

parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie against award to any Court.

¶56

When two conciliators, one of them is the Judicial Officer enquired the parties about the compromise petition, read over its contents, which was admitted by all the parties and after satisfying the same, record the compromise, I do not find any reason to accept the contention of the petitioner as stated above. Therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition.

¶57

Hence, the petition is dismissed .

¶58

SD/JUDGE

¶59

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Smt Roopa Devi v. Smt. Savithramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Roopa Devi v. Smt. Savithramma

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

Majeed Ahmad Vs State of Karnataka by

Suruthalappa Vs K D Thimmappa

Sri Kotraiah M S Vs Sri Rudresh P S

Taluk Panchayath Vs Smt. Rajeevi B. Shetty

Sri Ramappa Vs Sri.B.v.Sampath

Sri. Rameshwarial Vs Smt. Saravani Devi