Smt Indramma Vs Sri Muniyappa

S/O LATE MADDURIGA @ MADDURAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT S THOLOHALLI VILLAGE YELURU POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110

¶17

DODDA AKKAYAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34472 WP No. 16046 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRI VENKATESH

¶21

S/O LATE GANGAPPA AND MUNIYAMMA GRANDSON OF LATE DODDAKKAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶22

SRI RAVI S/O LATE GANGAPPA AND MUNIYAMMA GRANDSON OF LATE DODDAKKAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶23

SMT NARAYAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶24

RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT S THOLOHALLI VILLAGE YELURU POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110

¶25

SMT RATHNAMMA W/O VEERAJAPPA D/O DODDAKKAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562129

¶26

SRI MUNIKRISHNA S/O MUNIYAPPA AND LAKSHMAMMA GRANDSON OF LATE DODDAKKAYAMMA YANGUNTE VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:34472 WP No. 16046 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

HOSKOTE TALUK

¶31

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562129

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. K V NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶34

V/O. DATED 19.08.2025, NOTICE TO R2, R3, R4 AND R6 ARE DISPENSED WITH;

¶35

R5 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶36

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN OS NO. 1036/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL AND ETC.

¶37

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following

¶41

prayer:

¶42

"a) ISSUE a Writ of certiorari to Set-aside the impugned Compromise Decree, dated 27-11-2007 at ANNEXURE- 'B' passed by the learned Civil judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC at Devanahalli in O.S.No.1036/2007 by declaring the same is fraudulent, collusive and illegal besides erroneous.

¶43

b) ISSUE any such other Writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34472 WP No. 16046 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Heard Sri. H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned counsel

¶47

appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

¶48

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶49

What brings the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition revolves around a narrow compass. A suit is instituted in O.S.No.1036 of 2007 by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff and other respondents who were defendants. The suit was for declaration. The prayer and the schedule in the suit reads follows:

¶50

“WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass Judgment and decree:-

¶51

(a) to declare that the Plaintiffs have jointly acquired absolute title to the suit schedule property by inheritance to the property of Late Madduriga @ Maddurappa.

¶52

(b) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents, servants or any body claiming under or through them from interefering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶53

(c) to grant such order or relief as this Hon'ble Court may deens fit in the circumstances of the case

¶54

5 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:34472 WP No. 16046 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

including the costs of the proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶58

S C H E D U L E

¶59

Thatthe part and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.8 situated at Shotrhiya Thellohalli Village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, an extent of 2.27 guntas bounded on:

¶60

East by : Road

¶61

West by : Kantharaj's Property

¶62

North by : Girish's property

¶63

South by : T.R. Munegowda's property."

¶64

The petitioner is not made a party to the proceedings. After 13 days of filing the suit a compromise is entered into between the parties and the suit comes to be decreed. The petitioner then comes to know that the very property that he had got by way of a partition is made the subject matter of the suit and is closed by entering into a compromise. This comes to the petitioner as a bolt from the blue. The petitioner therefore immediately prefers another suit in O.S.No.1185 of 2017 against the respondents herein, seeking a declaration that the compromise decree so entered into on 12-11-2007 in O.S.No.1036 of 2007 is vitiated by fraud, collusion or misrepresentation. The suit in O.S.No.1036 of 2007 was

¶65

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34472 WP No. 16046 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

closed on 12-11-2007, immediately thereafter, within 36 days

¶68

of the closure of the suit, the petitioner prefers another suit seeking the afore-noted prayer. The suit is kept pending for 16 years. It comes to be disposed on 20-12-2023 holding that a compromise decree recorded by any Court, if has to be challenged, it should be only before the same Court.

¶69

While there can be no qualm about the order impugned, as it is in tune with law, the Apex Court in the case of BHARGAVI CONSTRUCTIONS AND ANOTHER V.

¶70

KOTHAKAPU MUTHYAM REDDY AND OTHERS¹ , has held as follows:

¶71

"…. …. ….

¶72

31. Similarly, issue was again examined by the High Court of Jharkhand (Single Judge) in Mira Sinha v. State of Jharkhand [ Mira Sinha v. State of Jharkhand , 2015 SCC OnLine Jhar 4377 : AIR 2016 Jhar 92] . The learned Judge, in para 7 held as under : (SCC OnLine Jhar)

¶73

“ 7 . In the background of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that Order 7 Rule 11( d ) CPC application is maintainable only when the suit is barred by any law. The expression “law” included in Rule 11( d ) includes the

¶74

1 (2018) 13 SCC 480

¶75

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:34472 WP No. 16046 of 2024

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

law of limitation and, it would also include the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”

¶78

32. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Allahabad, Gujarat, Bombay and Jharkhand High Courts in the aforementioned four decisions which, in our opinion, is the proper interpretation of the expression “law” occurring in clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code. This answers the first submission of the learned counsel for the respondents against the respondents.

¶79

33. So far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, it also has no merit. In our view, the decision rendered in State of Punjab [State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 669 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 524 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 535] is by the larger Bench (three Judge) and is, therefore, binding on us. No efforts were made and rightly to contend that the said decision needs reconsideration on the issue in question. That apart, when this Court has laid down a particular remedy to follow for challenging the award of Lok Adalat then in our view, the same is required to be followed by the litigant in letter and spirit as provided therein for adjudication of his grievance in the first instance. The reason being that it is a law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India (see M. Nagaraj v. Union of India [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] ). It is then for the writ court to decide as to what orders need to be passed on the facts arising in the case.

¶80

34. In the light of foregoing discussion, we cannot concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court.

¶81

35. As a result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order [Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy v. Bhargavi Constructions, 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 217 : (2015) 6 ALD 1] is set aside and the order passed by the trial court is restored. As a consequence, the application filed by the appellant-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code is allowed resulting in rejection of the plaint.

¶82

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:34472 WP No. 16046 of 2024

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

36. We, however, make it clear that the respondent-plaintiffs would be at liberty to challenge the legality and correctness of the award dated 22-8-2007 passed by the Lok Adalat by filing the writ petition under Article 226 or/and Article 227 of the Constitution in the High Court in accordance with law."

¶85

In the light of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of BHARGAVI CONSTRUCTIONS supra, admittedly a separate suit was not maintainable challenging a compromise decree. If the compromise decree on any ground or manifold circumstances, had to be challenged, it ought to have been preferred before the same Court, which had recorded the compromise and closed the proceedings.

¶86

In the light of the law, a separate suit being filed, was not maintainable, but the suit is pending before the concerned Court for 16 years, for no fault of the petitioner. The delay that has accrued is due to the pendency of the suit, which was not maintainable. Therefore, the act of the Court should prejudice no litigant. The petitioner cannot be left high and dry. He is entitled to agitate his rights by filing an application to recall the compromise so entered into. If the petitioner had delayed the recalling or institution of the suit

¶87

9 -

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC:34472 WP No. 16046 of 2024

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

that he has, it would have been an altogether different circumstance. The petitioner has diligently agitated his rights, but contrary to law i.e., before a wrong forum. Therefore, if the application is now preferred before the concerned Court, the concerned Court reject the application on the ground of delay.

¶91

Therefore, while affirming the order passed by the concerned Court, I reserve liberty to the petitioner to prefer an application under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC before the same Court, which recorded the compromise.

¶92

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would at this juncture submits that challenging the impugned order, Regular First Appeal is preferred and the same is pending. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not preferred the said Regular First Appeal. The submission is placed on record.

¶93