Shri Rudrappa Vs Shri Laxmappa — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shri Rudrappa Vs Shri Laxmappa — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Compromise accepted under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC; suit decreed in terms of the compromise petition; Office directed to draw the decree treating the compromise petition as part and parcel of the compromise decree

Issue for consideration

Whether the duly signed compromise petition filed jointly under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC is legal and voluntary and should be accepted, with the suit decreed in its terms

Court's answer

The contents of the compromise petition were explained to the parties in the language known to them; they admitted its contents and stated that they subscribed their signatures after understanding them

Ratio / Principle

The compromise entered into by the parties is legal and voluntary; it is accordingly accepted and the suit is decreed in terms of the compromise petition

Key takeaways

Office directed to draw the decree; the compromise petition shall be treated as part and parcel of the compromise decreeratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal No. 47 of 2008 (SP), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (NC: 2026:KHC-D:2572), oral judgment delivered on 18.02.2026 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar. The appeal under Section 100 CPC was filed by Rudrappa Pattanashetty and Shantavva Pattanshetty against the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2007 in R.A.No.8/2022 (I Addl. District Judge, Belgaum), praying to set it aside and restore the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2002 in O.S.No.53/1996 (Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Saundatti), a suit for specific performance of contract; respondents included the LRs of deceased Laxmappa Itnal and the Special Deputy Commissioner / Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Hidkal Dam, Belgaum. Before conclusion, counsel for both sides filed a duly signed compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. Finding that its contents had been explained to the parties, who admitted them and signed after understanding, and that the compromise was legal and voluntary, the court accepted it and decreed the suit in terms of the compromise petition, directing the Office to draw the decree with the petition as part and parcel of the compromise decree.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2572 RSA No. 47 of 2008

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.47 OF 2008 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SHRI RUDRAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA PATTANASHETTY, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL. R/O. BHAGOJIKOPPA, TALUK: RAMADURG, DIST. BELGAUM.

SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. BASAWANNEPPA PATTANSHETTY, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BHAGOJIKOPPA, TALUK: RAMADURG, DIST. BELGAUM.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

AND:

SHRI LAXMAPPA S/O. KENCHAPPA ITNAL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1A. SMT. BASAVVA W/O. LAKSHMAPPA ITNAL, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

1B. KENCHAPPA S/O. LAKSHMAPPA ITNAL, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

1C. LAKKAPPA S/O. LAKSHMAPPA ITNAL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

1D. PARASAPPA S/O. LAKSHMAPPA ITNAL,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2572 RSA No. 47 of 2008

HC-KAR

AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

1E. SMT. UDDAVVA W/O. BASAPPA PARIVAL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

1F. SMT. IRAVVA W/O. KAMAPPA HORATTI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

1G. SIDDAPPA S/O. LAKSHMAPPA ITNAL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O. MELLIKERI-591129, TQ. SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION MAJOR IRRIGATION, BELGAUM.

THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HIDKAL DAM, BELGAUM.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1(A TO G); SRI PRAVEENA DEVAREDDIYAVAR, HCGP FOR R2 & R3)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.07.2007 IN R.A.NO.8/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, AT: BELGAUM RESTORING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2002 IN O.S.NO.53/1996 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DVN.) AT SAUNDATTI, THE SAID SUIT BE DISMISSED AND THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.

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

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2572 RSA No. 47 of 2008

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

Case is called. The appellants and respondents and their respective counsels were present on 18.02.2026. The counsels for both parties have filed duly signed compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Under the compromise, it is stated that the suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of specific performance of contract. On the advice made by the elders and well wishers both appellants and respondents compromised the case and filed this petition.

Both appellants and respondents have amicably settled the matter and have accordingly compromised the case.

According to the compromise petition, both the parties prayed to draw decree as per the compromise petition.

The contents of the compromise petition explained to the parties to the suit in the language known to them. They admit its contents and they have stated that, they have

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2572 RSA No. 47 of 2008

HC-KAR

subscribed their signatures on the compromise petition after understanding its contents.

The compromise entered into by the parties is legal and appears to be voluntary. Hence, it is accepted. Thus, the suit is decreed in terms of compromise petition.

Office is hereby directed to draw decree. The compromise petition shall be treated as part and parcel of the compromise decree.

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

PMP /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17