Allowed¶61

Smt Kamalamma @ Kamala v. Smt. Bhagyamma

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2026WP/21695/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lok Adalat compromise decree set aside; non-impleading of legal representative of third plaintiff; restoration of partition suit O.S.No.325/2022; impleadment of petitioner as party-defendant; writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District; consent/fair submission for remand by respondents; all contentions kept open; claims subject to outcome of suit; NC: 2026:KHC:11060.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: Lok Adalat compromise decree dated 11.02.2023 in O.S.No.325/2022 (Annexure-A) set aside; suit restored to the file; petitioner to be impleaded as party-defendant; trial court to dispose of the matter in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties; parties' claims subject to the outcome of the suit; all contentions kept open. ¶61

Smt Kamalamma @ Kamala Vs Smt. Bhagyamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the Lok Adalat order recording compromise and decree dated 11.02.2023 in O.S.No. 325/2022 (a partition suit), entered into without the petitioner - who claims as legal representative of the third plaintiff A. Siddagangamma - being made a party, ought to be set aside and the suit restored. +1 more

¶51

Court's answer

The writ petition is allowed.

¶61

Ratio / Principle

The impugned Lok Adalat order recording compromise decree dated 11.02.2023 passed in O.S.NO.325/2022 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (Annexure-A) is set aside.

¶62

Key takeaways

The suit in O.S.NO.325/2022 is restored to the file.ratio¶63
The petitioner shall be impleaded as a party-defendant in the said suit (continuation '- defendant in the said suit.' appears at para 67).ratio¶66
After affording an opportunity to the parties, the trial Court shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (M.G.S. Kamal, J.), W.P. No. 21695 of 2023 (GM-RES), decided 23.02.2026 (NC: 2026:KHC:11060). The petitioner, Smt. Kamalamma @ Kamala, claiming to be the daughter and legal representative of late A. Siddagangamma - the third plaintiff in O.S.No. 325/2022, a partition suit before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District - was not made a party to the suit or to the compromise recorded as a Lok Adalat decree on 11.02.2023 (Annexure-A). She filed this Article 226 writ petition to set aside the Lok Adalat order and reopen the suit. Learned counsel for the respondents conceded that the petitioner had made out a case for consideration and, since she was questioning the compromise while claiming her rights, fairly sought remand. Holding: petition allowed; the Lok Adalat compromise decree dated 11.02.2023 set aside; suit in O.S.No.325/2022 restored to the file; petitioner to be impleaded as party-defendant; trial court to dispose of the matter in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties; whatever claims the parties may have to be subject to the outcome of the suit; all contentions kept open.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:11060 WP No. 21695 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 21695 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.KAMALAMMA @ KAMALA D/O. LATE A. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O. LATE VASANTHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.144, 4^TH MAIN ROAD GOVINDARAJANAGAR VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT.SHARANYA.H.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI GANGADHARAIAH A.N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS D/O. LATE ADAVIYAPPA W/O. LATE GURUSIDDAPPA R/AT: NO.1/1, 17^TH 'B' CROSS PAPAIAH GARDEN, KHB COLONY, 2^ND STAGE BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶13

SRI P. SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O. LATE PUTTAVERAPPA R/AT NO.3/4, 3^RD MAIN ROAD SANJEEVINI NAGARA MOODALAPALYA BENGALURU - 560 072.

¶14

SMT. SIDDALINGAMMA

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:11060 WP No. 21695 of 2023

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D/O. PUTTAVEERAPPA W/O. SRI LINGAPPA R/AT NO.57, 4^TH CROSS 2^ND MAIN, KAMAKSHIPALYA NEAR SIDDARTHA HIGH SCHOOL BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶18

SRI CHANNASIDDAPPA P. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O. LATE PUTTAVEERAPPA R/AT NO.209, KODIGEHALLI BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶19

SRI K.P. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O. LATE PUTTAVEERAPPA R/AT NO.18, NEAR PAVITHRARASHTRIYA VIDYALAYA RAYARADODDI RAMANAGARAM TOWN RAMANAGARAM - 562 159.

¶20

SRI L.UMESH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O. LATE A. LINGANNA R/AT NO.291, 3^RD CROSS JAGAJYOTHI BADAVANE KENCHANAPURA CROSS JNANABHARATHI POST BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶21

SRI PALANETHRA.L AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O. LATE A.LINGANNA R/AT HOUSE NO.4 4^TH CROSS, GARDEN VILLAS MARUTHI NAGARA NAGARABHAVI ROAD

¶22

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:11060 WP No. 21695 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

BENGALURU - 560 072.

¶25

SMT. SHAILAJA L AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS D/O. LATE A LINGANNA W/O. DR. N. M. RENUKAPPA R/AT NO.6, 28^TH BLOCK JSS LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 011.

¶26

SRI L. KEERTHIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O. LATE A LINGANNA R/AT NO.330, 8^TH CROSS AROGYA LAYOUT SHREEGANDHADA KAVAL VISHWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶27

SRI A. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS S/O. LATE. ADVIYAPPA R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE KODIGEHALLI POST YASHVANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶28

SRI K.S. ADAVEESH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O. SRI A. SHIVANNA R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE KODIGEHALLI POST YASHVANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶29

SRI K.S. SATHISH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O. SRI A. SHIVANNA R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE KODIGEHALLI POST YASHVANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:11060 WP No. 21695 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

SRI K.S. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O. SRI A. SHIVANNA R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE KODIGEHALLI POST YASHVANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶33

SRI J.LOKESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O. LATE A. JAYANNA, R/AT NO.335, 5^TH A MAIN ROAD REMKO LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶34

SRI J. CHANDRASHEKAR @ CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O. LATE A. JAYANNA R/AT FLAT NO.B-402 K.V. ORCHIDS, NO.2615/119 ULLALU MAIN ROAD NAGADEVANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶35

SMT.S. SUJATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS D/O .SRI A. SHIVANNA R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE KODIGEHALLI POST YASHVANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAGADEES H.P., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; R6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI THEJESH P., ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R16)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE LOK ADALATH ORDER OF RECORDING COMPROMISE AND DECREE DATED 11.02.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 325/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A ONT HE LFILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:11060 WP No. 21695 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY RE-OPEN THE SUIT AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONTEST THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.325/2022 AS PER LAW ON MERITS.

¶41

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

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by

¶45

the order dated 11.02.2023 passed by the Lok-Adalat as per Annexure-A, accepting the compromise entered into amongst the plaintiff and the defendants in O.S.No. 325/2022, which was filed for partition and separate possession.

¶46

The petitioner, who claims to be the daughter of one late A.Siddagangamma, who is the third plaintiff in the said suit. Petitioner has not been made a party to the said suit.

¶47

According to the petitioner, the propositor one Sri Adaviyappa and his wife Channaveeramma, had two daughters and three sons, namely, (1) A.Siddagangamma,

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:11060 WP No. 21695 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

(2) A.Chennamma, (3) A.Lingannaradya @ Linganna, (4) A.Shivanna and (5) A.Jayyanna. That the suit schedule property belonged to said Adaviyappa. The first daughter of A. Siddagangamma passed away leaving behind the petitioner herein and her two brothers, namely Sri Lokesh

¶51

V. and Gowrish V. As such, the petitioner, being a legal representative of A. Siddagangamma, has a share, right, title and interest in the suit schedule property. However, she has not been made a party to the suit. The suit, having been filed for partition, was compromised before the Lok Adalat without petitioner being made a party; as such, the present petition has been filed.

¶52

Learned counsel for respondents submits that though the petitioner appears to have made out a case for consideration, despite being invited by the respondents to join in as party, it has been the consistent and persistent stand of the petitioner that she would neither require any share in the property nor would she interfere with the property. It was under those circumstances that the

¶53

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:11060 WP No. 21695 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

parties proceeded to compromise in the matter. He fairly submits that as the petitioner is questioning the very compromise while claiming her rights, the matter may be remanded, giving an opportunity to the parties to raise all questions, including the petitioner’s claim to be the legal

¶56

representative of the said A. Siddagangamma.

¶57

His submission is placed on record.

¶58

In view of the above factual aspect of the matter,

¶59

the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i. The petition is allowed ;

¶62

ii. Impugned order of recording compromise decree dated 11.02.2023 passed in O.S.NO.325/2022 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru as per Annexure-A is set aside.

¶63

The suit in O.S.NO.325/2022 is restored to the file.

¶64

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:11060 WP No. 21695 of 2023

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

iii. The petitioner shall be impleaded as a party

¶67

defendant in the said suit.

¶68

iv. After affording an opportunity to the parties, the trial Court shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law;

¶69

v. It is made clear that whatever claims the parties may have shall be subject to the outcome of this suit.

¶70

vi. All contentions are kept open.

¶71

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶72

CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Lok Adalat order recording compromise and decree dated 11.02.2023 in O.S.No. 325/2022 (Annexure-A), accepting the compromise between the plaintiff and defendants in the partition suit, passed without the petitioner being a party.¶62
Lok Adalat / Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru · 11.02.2023
Prior proceeding
O.S.No. 325/2022, a suit for partition and separate possession filed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, was compromised before the Lok Adalat; the compromise between the plaintiff and defendants was accepted and decreed on 11.02.2023 (Annexure-A).¶45
Prior proceeding
The petitioner claims to be the daughter of late A. Siddagangamma, the third plaintiff in the said suit, and was not made a party to the suit.¶46
Prior proceeding
Per the petitioner's account, the propositor Sri Adaviyappa and his wife Channaveeramma had two daughters and three sons, including A. Siddagangamma; the suit schedule property belonged to Adaviyappa; A. Siddagangamma predeceased leaving the petitioner and her two brothers (Sri Lokesh V. and Gowrish V.), making the petitioner a legal representative with a claimed share in the suit schedule property.¶47
Prior proceeding
The petitioner asserts that, as legal representative of A. Siddagangamma, she has share, right, title and interest in the suit schedule property, and that the partition suit was compromised before the Lok Adalat without her being made a party, prompting this writ petition.¶51
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel for respondents submitted that although the petitioner appeared to have made out a case for consideration and despite being invited by the respondents to join as a party, her consistent and persistent stand was that she would neither require any share in the property nor interfere with it, whereupon the parties proceeded to compromise.¶52
Prior proceeding
Counsel for respondents fairly submitted that, as the petitioner was questioning the very compromise while claiming her rights, the matter may be remanded giving the parties opportunity to raise all questions, including the petitioner's claim to be the legal representative of A. Siddagangamma; the submission was placed on record.¶55

Smt Kamalamma @ Kamala v. Smt. Bhagyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kamalamma @ Kamala v. Smt. Bhagyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bowring Institute Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Mary Vs the Secretary

A. Rajkumar @ Babu Vs State of Karnataka

M Venugopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Harish B Vs the Bhavasara Kshatriya Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Anti Corrupation Bureau Vs Karnataka Information Commission