Karnataka High Court
Smt. Doddawwa W/O Narayan Pujeri vs Shri Ramappa S/O Bhimappa Keri on 3 July, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
WP No. 107174 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.107174 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. DODDAWWA
W/O NARAYAN PUJERI,
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SHRI RAMAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA KERI,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
2. SHRI. VENKAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA KERI,
ASHPAK AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
Digitally signed by ASHPAK
KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2024.07.11 11:05:16
+0530
2(A). KAMALAVVA W/O VENKAPPA KERI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: YADWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
2(B). JAYASHREE
W/O BASANGOUDA LINGADALLI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: BABALESHWAR,
TQ: AND DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586113.
3. SHRI RANGAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA KERI,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
WP No. 107174 of 2023
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
4. SHRI ARJUN S/O BHIMAPPA KERI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
5. SHRI. LAXMAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA KERI,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
6. SHRI. HANUMANTH VENKAPPA KERI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
7. SHRI GURUNATH S/O RANGAPPA KERI
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
8. SHRI SHRINIVAS S/O RANGAPPA KERI
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
9. DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
DALMIAPURAM, 621, 651, THIRUCHIRAPALLI
DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, HAVING ITS
MANUFACTURING PLANT AT: DALMIA CEMENT
(BHARAT) LIMITED,
R S NO.394, YADWAD VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136, R/BY ITS AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY, MR. MAHESH MANNAPUR
S/O LACHCHAPPA MANNAPUR, AGE: 46 YEARS.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R9;
R1, R2, R2(A), R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8-NOTICE SERVED;
R2(B)-NOTICE RETURNED AS NO SUCH ADDRESSEE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
WP No. 107174 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY ORDER, WRIT TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE LOK ADALAT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, IN
O.S.NO.518/2018 DATED 07/03/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.9. All other respondents are though served with notice, remained unrepresented.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order passed by the Lok Adalath of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, in O.S.No.518/2018 dated 07.03.2020, vide Annexure-D, wherein the compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be allowed. The suit was decreed in terms of the compromise entered into by the parties and final decree was ordered to be drawn. It is the case of petitioner herein that respondent No.1 had filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the petitioner herein and other respondents before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, in O.S.No.518/2018. Petitioner and -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 107174 of 2023 respondents No.1 to 4 are brothers and sister and children of Bhimappa Keri who is the propositus who died in the year 1992. His wife died in the year 2002. There is no dispute with regard to respondent No.1 being the legal heir along with the petitioner of late Bhimappa. In the matter before the Civil Court, the defendants filed a joint memo under Order 23 Rule 3 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to compromise the matter. Accordingly a compromise petition came to be filed by the parties seeking to amicably settle the matter by virtue of the said compromise petition which was read over and explained in the language known to the parties. The petitioner and respondents have signed the compromise petition and executed compromise petition by affixing their signature therein, accepted the compromise petition and the compromise was allowed before the Lok Adalath.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that as per the compromise petition respondents No.1 to 4 have paid ten lakh rupees to the petitioner through Axis Bank Mudhol branch bearing cheque No.007185. He -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 107174 of 2023 vehemently contends that on the completion of entire process, the said cheque was snatched away from the petitioner and nor paid the amount. Therefore, respondents No.1 to 4 neither issued the cheque nor paid the cash to the petitioner. Since from the decree of the judgment the petitioner has been insisting the respondents to pay the amount as per the compromise decree, but the respondents No.1 to 4 on one reason or the other were postponing the same and have not paid the amount to the petitioner as agreed in the compromise till date.
4. It is further contended by the learned counsel by way of his pleadings that the petitioner made efforts and requested for issuance of fresh cheque in favour of the petitioner, but the respondents have not agreed to pay the same and therefore the respondents have played fraud, obtained the signature on the petition forcefully and the Court decreed the suit in their favour but have not acted upon the said decree. Therefore, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non acting or non payment of the cheque as agreed to in the -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 107174 of 2023 compromise petition executed by the petitioner and respondents jointly of Rs.2,00,000/- each totaling to ten lakh rupees through Axis Bank, Mudhol Branch amounts to playing fraud by the defendants No.1 to 4 upon defendant No.5 by convincing defendant No.5 to compromise the petition on the assurance of giving cheque of ten lakh rupees.
5. He also contends that she was induced into signing the compromise petition and coerced to say so before the Presiding Officer that she has received the amount and later they were not ready to hand over the cheque as compromised in the compromise petition and thereafter despite her request to make payment, they have not paid the amount and now it is learnt by the petitioner that the said property is being alienated to the third party. On these grounds he contends that the entire process of execution and signature on the compromise petition is a fraud played on the petitioner who was defendant No.5 before the trial Court. Therefore he seeks to set aside the order passed by the Lok Adalath on the basis of the -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 107174 of 2023 fraudulent compromise and consequently set aside the decree passed in O.S.No.518/2018 before the Lok Adalath.
6. The learned counsel relies upon the following two judgments in support of his case.
i) K.Srinivasappa and Ors. Vs. M.Mallamma and Ors., reportable judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3486-3488 of 2022 dated 18.05.2022.
ii) R.Janakiammal vs. S.K.Kumarasamy (deceased) through legal representatives and others, reported in (2021) 9 SCC 114.
7. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No.9 vehemently contends that he is the purchaser of the property in question from defendant No.2 i.e., respondent No.3 herein. He contends that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law, so also on the facts. The same is liable to be dismissed with costs. He contends that, admittedly it is not the case of the petitioner that she has not signed the compromise petition or that she was not present before the Lok Adalath when the compromise petition was executed and put into force before the Lok Adalath. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 107174 of 2023 of the compromise, what was agreed to between the parties has not been performed by none of the parties with regard to payment of the amount as it is the allegation made. However, the same is not accepted, it is denied.
8. He further contends that if at all any such grievance is made out by the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to enforce the compromise decree which is executed before the Lok Adalath. Therefore he contends that the present petition is not maintainable and the question of fraud that is alleged by the petitioner herein in this case would not amount to fraud as demonstrated by the petitioner in this petition herself. Because it is not the case of petitioner that she has not signed as stated earlier. At the cost of repetition, the compromise petition has been signed by the petitioner, executed by the petitioner who was present before the Lok Aaalath, agreed to the terms and conditions of the compromise and has kept quiet till the entire process of compromise was over, not even uttering a word with regard to the compromise being illegal or forceful or involuntary, or -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 107174 of 2023 there was any coercion, undue influence, inducement or threat while executing the compromise.
9. Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reads as under:
"3. Compromise of suit.--Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties, or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect to the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit:
Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment."
10. It is also necessary to extract section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which is as under:
"21. Award of Lok Adalat.--(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 107174 of 2023 decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub- section(1) of section 20, the court-free paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).] (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award."
11. Therefore section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, is akin and on par with the decree of the Civil Court and is to be treated as final and binding on all parties to the dispute. The same is reiterated in the case of P.T.Thomas vs. Thomas Job, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 478, wherein it is held that section 21 has binding effect on Lok Adalath in terms of the decree passed by the Civil Court, and it has a binding effect which is conclusive. So also it is held that it is permanent and is equivalent to a decree executable.
12. What has to be seen by this court while entertaining this petition is whether there has been any fraud that has been proved and established and whether the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 107174 of 2023 compromise petition at the time of execution and the decree/award being passed before the Lok-Adalath was agitated or any objection was raised with regard to there being any force, coercion, fraud or undue influence at the time of presenting the said compromise petition or is it a statement, which is made pursuant to the compromise petition being filed and an award being passed before the Lok-Adalath. In the present case on hand admittedly no such statement or submission was made before the Trial Court or before the Lok-Adalath with regard to force, coercion, fraud or undue influence or inducement. Admittedly it is the case of the petitioner that, subsequent to the judgment, the award being passed before the Lok-Adalath and the amount that was agreed in the compromise petition has not been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, it amounts to fraud.
13. I am afraid of the said contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be sustained and same is negatived as it runs contrary to the provisions of the compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule III of CPC, so also on the provision of Section 21 of the Legal Services
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 107174 of 2023 Authorities Act, 1987 and the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court supra, wherein it is clearly held that the compromise petition in normal circumstances is a creature of an agreement between the parties to put an end and the finality to the proceedings, so that an amicable resolution to the dispute can be arrived at by putting quietus to the litigation, in order to gain peace and live amicably thereafter. Therefore, any compromise petition on the award passed before the Lok-Adalath is as good as a decree drawn by the Court and as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments supra that it is an executable decree, if there is any non-compliance of the said compromise decree.
14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the vehement arguments put forth by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the petition averments and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is his case that pursuant to the execution of the compromise petition and the same having been recorded, executed and award having been passed before the Lok-Adalath in terms of the compromise, one of the terms of the compromise
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 107174 of 2023 petition for payment of amount has not been made in favour of the petitioner, though, it is reflected by way of a cheque in the compromise petition and even according to the petitioner, in this petition, he has made a statement that he has requested the respondents to make the payment in terms of the compromise and the same was not made. That being so, the ground of fraud, so alleged by the petitioner herein cannot be accepted.
15. It appears that there is no compliance with regard to the compromise petition executed by the parties according to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner could avail the remedy of enforcing the decree as it can be enforced as a decree, though it is an award passed by the Lok-Adalath under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act. Therefore, this Court does not find any good cogent reason or ground to interfere in the order passed by the Civil Court regarding the compromise and the award being passed by the Lok-Adalath. Accordingly, I pass the following:
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 107174 of 2023 ORDER.
i) The petition is dismissed.
ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to enforce the
compromise petition, if at all there is no compliance or breach of the terms and conditions of the compromise executed by the parties before the Lok-Adalath.
Sd/-
JUDGE MRK-para 1 to 11.
VB-para 12 to end.
CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13