Dismissed¶¶56

G Surendra Gupta v. Smt. Kavitha Vinod

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2026WP/10337/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Finality and sanctity of Lok Adalat compromise decree; Article 227 certiorari against final decree in partition suit O.S. No.1558/2022; vague and omnibus fraud allegations insufficient to unsettle decree; adopted-daughter status dispute; encroachment on properties retained under compromise is a distinct cause of action with civil court remedy; Article 227 cannot decide disputed facts or indirectly nullify lawful decree; writ petition dismissed with liberty. High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.; WP No. 10337 of 2026 (GM-RES); decided 06.04.2026; NC: 2026:KHC:18461.

What did the court decide?

In light of counsel's fair submission that Schedule 'D' property stands allotted under the decree, there is no substantial or bona fide challenge to the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.1558/2022 by the Lok Adalat.

G Surendra Gupta Vs Smt. Kavitha Vinod — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 227 seeking quashing of the final decree drawn in terms of the Lok Adalat compromise in O.S. No.1558/2022 warrants interference, the petitioners disputing the respondent's claim of being their adopted daughter and alleging vitiating circumstances. +1 more

¶¶34

Court's answer

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

When parties to a partition suit voluntarily opt for settlement, seek reference to the Lok Adalat, and the settlement culminates in a lawful compromise decree, the decree attains finality and a higher degree of sanctity, and cannot be lightly interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly absent cogent material indicating fraud, coercion or misrepresentation vitiating the compromise.

¶¶43

Key takeaways

The petitioners' allegations are vague and omnibus and do not disclose any material particulars demonstrating that the compromise decree was obtained by fraud or any other vitiating circumstance.ratio¶¶44
The grievance that the respondent is interfering with Schedule 'A' to 'C' properties retained by the petitioners under the compromise gives rise to a distinct and independent cause of action and cannot be a ground to unsettle a duly recorded compromise decree.ratio¶¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition suit O.S. No.1558/2022 (2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore) between daughter-plaintiff and parent-defendants was jointly referred to the Lok Adalat; the compromise, accepted as lawful and voluntary, allotted Schedule 'D' property to the plaintiff and a final decree was drawn on 08.07.2023 (signed 23.01.2024), Annexure-C. The defendants filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorari to quash the decree, disputing the plaintiff's status as their adopted daughter and alleging interference with Schedules 'A' to 'C' retained by them. Held, dismissing the petition: (i) there is no substantial or bona fide challenge to the compromise decree; the allegations are vague and omnibus and disclose no material particulars of fraud or other vitiating circumstance; (ii) a voluntary settlement before the Lok Adalat culminating in a lawful compromise decree attains finality and sanctity and cannot be lightly interfered with under Article 227 absent cogent material of fraud, coercion or misrepresentation; (iii) alleged interference with the properties retained under the compromise is a distinct and independent cause of action and no ground to unsettle the decree; (iv) Article 227 cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or indirectly nullify a lawful compromise decree. Liberty reserved to the petitioners to seek appropriate relief before the competent Civil Court.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18461 WP No. 10337 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.10337 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

G SURENDRA GUPTA S/O LATE GOVINDA SETTY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

¶9

SMT. SHANTHALAKSHMI W/O SURENDRA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO.232, NEW NO.16-16/1, MOHIDDIN SAB ROAD ITTIGEGUDU, NAZARBAD MOHALLA MYSORE - 577 010

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. KAVITHA VINOD W/O LATE VINOD C, D/O G. SURENDRA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.190 GROUND FLOOR, 6^TH CROSS MADEGOWDA CIRCLE, 2^ND STAGE, HEBBALA, MYSORE - 570 017

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18461 WP No. 10337 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING OF IMPUGNED FINAL DECREE DRAWN BY THE HON'BLE 2^ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSORE IN O.S NO.1558/2022 DATED 08/07/2023 (SIGNED ON 23.01.2024) VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This caption petition is filed assailing the compromise

¶23

recorded by the Lokadalath between a

¶24

daughter/respondent and petitioners/parents.

¶25

Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶26

The respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S. No.1558/2022 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. The present petitioners, who were arrayed as defendants in the said suit, entered appearance through counsel and

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18461 WP No. 10337 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

contested the proceedings by filing their written

¶30

statement. During the pendency of the suit, both parties, with a view to amicably resolve their inter se disputes, jointly sought reference of the matter to the Lok Adalat.

¶31

Pursuant to such reference, the parties appeared before the Lok Adalat and filed a joint compromise petition, which was duly signed by the plaintiff, defendants, and their respective learned counsel. The Lok Adalat, upon due verification of the terms and conditions set out in the compromise petition, and being satisfied that the settlement arrived at between the parties was lawful and voluntary, proceeded to accept the same. In terms of the compromise, the present petitioners, who are the parents, agreed to allot Schedule ‘D’ property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Accordingly, a decree came to be drawn in terms of the compromise on 08.07.2023, as reflected in Annexure-C.

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18461 WP No. 10337 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The present writ petition is filed by the

¶35

petitioners/defendants calling in question the very status of the respondent/plaintiff by disputing her claim of being the adopted daughter of the petitioners. Various grounds are urged in the petition seeking to dislodge the compromise decree.

¶36

However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that under the compromise decree, Schedule ‘D’ property has already been allotted to the respondent/plaintiff. The primary grievance now projected by the petitioners is that despite such allotment, the respondent is allegedly interfering with and encroaching upon Schedule ‘A’ to ‘C’ properties, which were retained by the petitioners under the compromise.

¶37

In the light of the aforesaid submission, it is evident that there is no substantial or bona fide challenge to the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.1558/2022 by the Lok Adalat. It is a settled principle that when

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:18461 WP No. 10337 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

parties to a partition suit voluntarily opt for settlement and

¶42

seek reference to the Lok Adalat, and when such settlement culminates in a lawful compromise decree, the same attains finality and is to be accorded a higher degree

¶43

of sanctity. This Court has consistently held that such compromise decrees cannot be lightly interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the absence of any cogent material indicating fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation vitiating the compromise.

¶44

In the present case, the allegations made by the petitioners are vague and omnibus in nature, and do not disclose any material particulars to demonstrate that the compromise decree was obtained by playing fraud or by any other vitiating circumstance. On the contrary, the grievance now sought to be projected relates to the alleged interference by the respondent with the properties retained by the petitioners under the compromise. Such a grievance, in the considered opinion of this Court, gives

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18461 WP No. 10337 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

rise to a distinct and independent cause of action and cannot be a ground to unsettle a duly recorded compromise decree.

¶48

If indeed the respondent is interfering with the petitioners’ possession over Schedule ‘A’ to ‘C’ properties, it is always open for the petitioners to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent Civil Court seeking necessary reliefs in accordance with law. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 cannot be invoked to adjudicate such disputed questions of fact or to indirectly nullify a lawful compromise decree.

¶49

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference.

¶50

It is, however, made clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the petitioners from seeking appropriate relief before the competent Civil Court in respect of the alleged interference with the properties

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:18461 WP No. 10337 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

retained by them under the compromise decree, in

¶55

accordance with law.

¶56

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶57