Goolire Gowda Vs Basavaraju

SECOND APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.10.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5022/2019 BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA SITTING AT KANAKAPURA AND ETC.

¶39

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who was not a party to the original suit in O.S.No.520/2014 (Old O.S.No.609/2013), nor in R.A.No.5022/2019.

¶43

It is the contention of learned counsel for appellant that the appellant was not made a party to the proceedings. However, it is seen that in the first Appellate Court, i.e., the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, in R.A.No.5022/2019, the parties to the proceedings have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves by filing a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC. Based on the said compromise petition, a compromise decree has been passed by the first Appellate Court between the parties.

¶44

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14841 RSA No. 103 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

2.1 Learned counsel for appellant contended that the appellant, being one of the family members, is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of one of the suit schedule properties from the time of his grandfather and father and that he has subsequently succeeded to the same. Learned counsel for appellant further contended that the appellant continues in such possession and enjoyment of the property without any disturbance from anyone whatsoever. However, on the basis of the fraudulent compromise decree entered into by the parties before the first Appellate Court, without impleading the appellant as a party, the respondents are making hectic efforts to disturb the appellant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of one of the suit schedule properties.

¶47

2.2 It is also contended by the learned counsel for appellant that the compromise petition filed is fraudulent. It is further contended by the learned counsel for appellant that the decree obtained by the parties in the first Appellate Court is also fraudulent, as they have deliberately failed to implead the appellant as a party to the proceedings, despite the appellant’s property forming part of the suit schedule properties. It is the

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14841 RSA No. 103 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

contention of the learned counsel for appellant that upon the death of one Chikke Gowda, S/o. Goolire Gowda @ Dandi Gowda succeeded to the estate. It is further contended that Goolire Gowda married one Mugamma. Thereafter, Goolire Gowda died on 01.10.1998 and his wife Mugamma predeceased him on 25.05.1995. The Tahsildar has thereafter issued the death certificates in respect of the said persons.

¶51

2.3 It is also contended by the learned counsel for appellant that Goolire Gowda @ Dandi Gowda and Mugamma had a son by name Goolire Gowda, who is none other than the appellant. It is further contended that the appellant was married to one Honnamma, who has since passed away. The property bearing survey No.204/3 measuring an extent of 34 guntas, situated at Malligemetlu Grama, Maralawadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, originally belonged to Chikke Gowda and the grandfather of the appellant and is more fully described in the schedule. The appellant has also produced relevant RTC extracts issued by the Revenue Department along with the appeal memo. Therefore, the appellant being a legal heir to the property referred to above, has a right over the suit

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:14841 RSA No. 103 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

schedule property and is in possession of the same to an extent of 34 guntas.

¶56

2.4 It is contended by the learned counsel for appellant

¶57

that the parties to the suit as well as in the first appeal, could not have ignored or omitted to implead the appellant as a party to the proceedings. It is further alleged that the respondents have colluded with each other and have filed a compromise petition, which is stated to be a fraudulent and concocted document, behind the back of the appellant and have thereby secured a decree before the first Appellate Court. Hence, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant.

¶58

This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents, as the short point involved in this appeal is that the appellant is aggrieved by the compromise decree passed in R.A.No.5022/2019 by the first Appellate Court, wherein he was not impleaded/arrayed as a party. Present appeal is not maintainable as the appellant would have to approach the Lower Appellate Court which passed the compromise decree to seek a relief to set aside the same.

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:14841 RSA No. 103 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Apparently, it is seen that the appellant was neither a party to the original suit nor to the proceedings before the first Appellate Court. The appellant claims that one of the suit schedule properties belongs to him and that he has a right, as well as possession and enjoyment thereof. All these aspects would require consideration by the first Appellate Court, which has accepted the compromise petition and passed a decree based thereon.

¶63

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Triloki Nath Singh v/s Anirudh Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others reported in (2020) 6 Supreme Court Cases 629 has dealt with the matter and decided that when a party to the proceedings or a non-party to the proceedings questions a compromise decree, the same will have to be filed before the very same Court which passed the compromise decree. Any petition filed before any other Court including this Court, unless the compromise is recorded by this Court would not be maintainable.

¶64

The judgment in the case Triloki Nath Singh stated

¶65

supra , is followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri

¶66

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:14841 RSA No. 103 of 2026

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Mukund bhavan Trust and Others v/s Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another reported in (2024) 15 Supreme Court Cases 675 . This Court, while considering these two judgments in reported judgment in W.P.No.202339/2025 (decided on 14.01.2026), has dealt with how the challenge to a compromise decree will have to be addressed by a party to the proceedings, secondly a non-party to the proceedings.

¶69

In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is not maintainable. However, the appellant cannot be left remediless and is relegated to approach the first Appellate Court by filing an appropriate application or petition for consideration in accordance with law.

¶70

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

i. This appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶73

ii. Nevertheless, liberty is reserved to the appellant to

¶74

approach the first Appellate Court in R.A.No.5022/2019 by filing an appropriate interlocutory application or petition. Upon such

¶75

9 -

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:14841 RSA No. 103 of 2026

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

application or petition being filed, the first Appellate Court shall accept the same and proceed in accordance with law, keeping in view the judgments rendered by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court stated herein supra.

¶79

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶80

CPN

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Goolire Gowda v. Basavaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goolire Gowda v. Basavaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Manjeshi Vs Sri Hanumantha Naika T

Ms. Leia Cariappa Vs the Commissioner of Public Instructions

C G Krishnamurty Rao Since Dead by Lrs Smt Chandrakala B K Vs Smt. Sharadamma Since Dead by Lrs Smt Anasuyamma Since Dead by Lrs Smt Nagaratna

Sri. T. H. Nagabhushana Vs Smt. Lakshmidevamma

Shivamma Vs Shivaramanna

Rajappa Vs Onkarappa