Sri.Harisha R Vs Sri.Yathish — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri.Harisha R Vs Sri.Yathish — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of; liberty reserved to the petitioner to prosecute Misc.No.15/2025 (pending before the Civil Court to set aside the compromise decree in O.S.No.601/2024); respondent restrained from proceeding further in Ex.No.47/2025 and execution proceedings stayed till the outcome of Misc.No.15/2025; no opinion expressed on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Articles 226/227 seeking quashing of the compromise decree is the proper avenue, given that the petitioner has already filed Misc.No.15/2025 before the Civil Court to set aside the same compromise decree and that petition is pending. +1 more

Court's answer

Since Misc.No.15/2025 to set aside the compromise decree in O.S.No.601/24 is pending, the petitioner can adjudicate the matter before the Civil Court in Misc.No.15/2025, which can venture into the detailed trial for the prayer sought, rather than this Court adverting to the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to prosecute and conduct Misc.No.15/2025 filed to set aside the compromise decree in O.S.No.601/2024 passed before the second Additional Civil Judge, JMFC, Hassan, which is pending adjudication.

Key takeaways

In the meanwhile, the respondent is ordered not to proceed further in Ex.No.47/2025.ratio¶52
The execution proceedings in Ex.No.47/2025 shall be stayed till the outcome of Misc.No.15/2025.ratio¶56
This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter; the trial Court is at liberty to delve into the merits independently.obiter¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 25175 of 2025 (GM-CPC), High Court of Karnataka, decided 16 October 2025 (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.). Petitioner, defendant in O.S.No.601/2024 (possession suit by his brother based on an alleged gift deed dated 25.06.2004 executed by their grandfather Sri.Thimmegowda), sought quashing of the compromise petition dated 07.03.2025 and the consequent compromise decree passed in that suit by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, alleging he was forced into the compromise on the understanding that the respondent would withdraw his partition suit O.S.No.236/2024, and alleging fraud/misrepresentation in obtaining the compromise decree (said to be before the lok adalath); the respondent denied coercion or any such terms and noted that execution had been initiated in Ex.No.47/2025. Observing that the petitioner had already filed Misc.No.15/2025 before the Civil Court on 17.07.2025 to set aside the compromise decree and that it was pending, the Court held that the petitioner could adjudicate the matter there, where a detailed trial could be had, rather than in a petition under Article 226. The writ petition was disposed of: liberty reserved to prosecute Misc.No.15/2025; the respondent was directed not to proceed further in Ex.No.47/2025 and execution was stayed till the outcome of Misc.No.15/2025; the Court expressly expressed no opinion on the merits, leaving the trial Court free to decide them independently.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41610 WP No. 25175 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 25175 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI.HARISHA R AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O. RANGEGOWDA. T, R/AT "SRI RANGANATHA NILAYA", NO.2165, 4^TH CROSS, COLLEGE ROAD, RAKSHANAPURAM, HASSAN CITY- 573 201.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. LAVANYA.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. YATHISH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. RANGEGOWDA, R/AT NO. 1141, "STAVYA", SMV LAYOUT, 6TH BLOCK, ULLAL UPANAGARA, BENGALURU- 560 091. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.S.GANESHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION AND QUASH THE COMPROMISE PETITION DTD 07.03.2025 FILED IN O.S NO. 601/24 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN WHICH IS GIVEN HAREIN AT ANNX-E AND THE CONSEQUENT COMPROMISE DECREE DTD 07.03.25 PASSED IN

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41610 WP No. 25175 of 2025

HC-KAR

O.S NO. 601/24 BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN WHICH IS GIVEN HEREIN AT ANNX-F.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.601/2024 which is filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking the relief of possession with respect to the suit schedule property therein. Another suit was also filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.236/2024 against the petitioner for the relief of partition and separation possession of the properties mentioned therein.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and respondent are blood - related brothers. O.S.No.601/2024 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant for the relief of possession on the strength of the alleged gift deed executed by his grandfather Sri.Thimmegowda in his

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41610 WP No. 25175 of 2025

HC-KAR

favour on 25.06.2004 and therefore he claimed the right

of the suit schedule property on the basis of the gift deed.

Pursuant to the death of Rangegowda who is the father, petitioner has been residing in the suit schedule property in Hassan. There is a dispute with regard to the ownership and possession of the suit schedule property and so also in the other suit for partition between both the parties.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent and his younger brother forced him to agree for a settlement in O.S.No.601/2024 and enter into a compromise based on which the petitioner agreed for the compromise with the respondent, accordingly compromise petition was filed and same came to be decreed on 07.03.2025.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner that the respondent has agreed that he would withdraw the partition suit filed against the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41610 WP No. 25175 of 2025

HC-KAR

petitioner in case the petitioner agrees to the compromise in OS No. 601/2024. But however, after the compromise petition was entered into, the respondent failed to withdraw the O.S.No.236/2024 and continued to prosecute the same. Going further ahead, the respondent in fact got initiated an Execution Petition in Ex.No.47/2025 before the trial Court to execute the decree of the compromise petition.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff has alleged fraud and misrepresentation and that there is a fraud played by the respondent in obtaining the compromise decree before the lok adalath. Therefore, the present petition is filed. Hence, seeks an interim order.

Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent who is the plaintiff in both suits contends that he has not played any fraud and neither he coerced nor forced the petitioner into filing any compromise petition

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41610 WP No. 25175 of 2025

HC-KAR

and there was no terms and conditions with regard to withdrawal of the partition suit as per the compromise decree. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. Secondly, he also contends that the petitioner has preferred Misc.No.15/2025 before the Civil Court on 17.07.2025 i.e., pursuant to filing of this petition. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner can adjudicate the matter before the trial Court in Misc.No.15/2025 with regard to seeking relief to set aside the compromise decree.

I have heard the learned for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

It is not in dispute that petitioner has also filed a miscellaneous petition No. 15/2025 seeking to set aside the compromise decree in OS No.601/24 and the same is pending. Therefore, the petitioner can adjudicate the matter before the Civil Court in Misc.No.15/2025 which can venture into the detailed trial for the prayer sought by

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41610 WP No. 25175 of 2025

HC-KAR

the petitioner rather than this Court adverting to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It would also be relevant for the petitioner to approach the very same court in which the compromise was entered to seek for the relief of setting aside the compromise decree on the various grounds so urged by the petitioner. Under

the circumstances, I pass the following order.

ORDER

The petition is disposed of.

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to

prosecute and conduct the Misc.No.15/2025 filed to set aside the compromise decree in O.S.No.601/2024 passed before the second Additional Civil Judge, JMFC, Hassan, which is pending adjudication.

In the meanwhile, it is ordered that the respondent shall not proceed further in Ex.No.47/2025.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41610 WP No. 25175 of 2025

HC-KAR

The execution proceedings shall be stayed till

the outcome of Misc No.15/2025.

It is made clear that this court has not

expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter; the trial Court is at liberty to delve into the merits of the matter independently.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

RCK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10