Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kasturi W/O. Iragouda Kumathalli vs Shri. Raghavendra S/O. Iragouda ... on 25 July, 2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 107712 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.100187 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
WP NO.107712 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. SHIVANAND PATIL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCN: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GADYAL-587330, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. SMT. INDIRA W/O. BALCHANDRA TONASHYAL,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GADYAL-587330, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. SMT. SAROJINI W/O. ASHOK BYADAGI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. JAMBAGI B.K-587301,
NOW AT: GIRISH NAGAR,
OLD LIC OFFICE, 2ND CROSS,
JAMAKHANDI-587301, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCCN: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. GADYAL-587330, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
-2-
SHRI. IRAGOUDA S/O. LAXMAN KUMATHALLI,
SINCE DECEASED LRS.,
ALREADY ON RECORD AS PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 AND
RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 3 TO 5 IN THIS CASE.
2. SMT. KASUTRI W/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GADYAL-587330, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. SMT. SUMANGALA W/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCCN: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. TELSANG-591265, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. KUMARI LAXMI D/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCCN. NIL,
R/BY RESPONDENT NO.2
MOTHER AS A MINOR GUARDIAN,
R/O. TELSANG-591265, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SHRI. MALAGOUDA S/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCCN: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. TELSANG-591304,
NOW AT: NEAR FOREST OFFICE,
SHNATINAGAR, ATHANI,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED COMPROMISE DECREE IN O.S. NO.1395/2009
DATED 30.01.2010 (DECREE WAS SIGNED ON 24.04.2010)
RECORDED BY THE LOK ADALATH IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, ATHANI AND ONE OF THE CONCILIATOR
(ANNEXURE-D) TO THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
WP NO.100187 OF 2021
BETWEEN
SMT. KASTURI
W/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GADYAL, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587330.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.L. MATTI, ADV.)
AND:
1. SHRI. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. GADYAL, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587330.
SHRI. IRAGOUDA S/O. LAXMAN KUMATHALLI
SINCE DECEASED L.RS.
ALREADY ON RECORD AS PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 AND
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 IN THIS CASE
2. SMT. SUMANGALA W/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. TELSANG, TQ: ATHANII,
DIST: BELGAVI-591265.
3. KUMARI. LAXMI D/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATAHLLLI,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/BY RESPONDENT NO.2
MOTHER AS MINOR GUARDIAN
R/O. TELSANG, TQ: ATHANII,
DIST: BELGAVI-591265.
4. SHRI. MALAGOUDA S/O. LAXMAN KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. TELSANG, NOW AT. NEAR FOREST OFFICE,
-4-
SHANTINAGAR, ATHANI-591304
DIST: BELGAVI.
5. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. SHIVANAND PATIL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GADYAL, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587330.
6. SMT. INDIRA W/O. BALCHANDRA TONASHYAL,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GADYAL, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587330.
7. SMT. SAROJINI W/O. ASHOK BYADAGI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. JAMBAGI B.K.
NOW AT GIRISH NAGAR
OLD LIC OFFICE, 2ND CROSS,
JAMKHANDI-587301, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.S. NAGASHETTY, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2 & R3;
R4-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING A COMPROMISE
DECREE RECORDED BY THE LOK ADALAT IN THE PRESENCE OF
LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, ATHANI AND ONE OF THE
CONCILIATOR DATED 30.01.2010 (DECREE WAS SIGNED ON
24.04.2010) IN O.S.NO.1395/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 18.07.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
ORDER
These two petitions are filed by defendant No.2 and defendants 4 to 6 assailing the compromise recorded by the Lok Adalath in O.S.No.1395/2009.
2. Before this Court proceeds to advert to the facts of the case, this Court deems it fit to cull out the family tree, which is as under:
Laxman (died) Gourawwa (Wife) (died) Iragouda Malagouda Kalyani Sumitra Shobha Sharada D.No.1 Kasturi (1st Wife) Def.no.2 Sumangala (2nd Wife) Def.no.3 Laxmi (Def.no.7) (Daughter) Rajeshwari Indhira Sarojini Raghavendra (Def.no.4) (Def.no.5) (Def.no.6) (Plaintiff) -6-
3. The dispute is between Irangouda, who is arrayed as defendant No.1 and the first wife and children. Raghavendra, who is the son of first wife and Irangowda, filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.1395/2001. The second wife was arrayed as defendant No.3 and the daughter born through second marriage is arrayed as defendant No.7 and brother of defendant No.1 is arrayed as defendant No.8.
4. Pending consideration of the suit, a joint compromise petition was filed and the matter was referred to Lok Adalath and compromise was recorded. The daughters i.e., defendants 4 to 6 gave up their rights and in terms of compromise, defendant No.2 and plaintiff were jointly allotted a residential house bearing VPC No.112/B and they have also received a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- from defendant No.1. This compromise is recorded by the Lok Adalath. While recording compromise, the Lok Adalath has enquired with the parties and the counsel on record and on satisfaction, the compromise petition is taken on record and compromise is recorded. The compromise decree is -7- passed on 30.1.2010 while these two petitions are filed on 19.1.2021 and 22.9.2022.
5. The counsel appearing for the petitioners(daughters) in W.P.No.107712/2023 reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would point out that the in the compromise recorded in 2010, no share is allotted to them though they are the children born through first wife and they are entitled for their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. The counsel has further contended that the Lok Adalath has not followed the procedure prescribed under Regulation 5 of the National Legal Service Authority (Lok Adalath Regulation) 2009. The daughters have also alleged that their interest was not protected and when enquired with their mother(defendant No.2) she informed that she is not aware of this compromise decree.
6. The counsel appearing for defendant No.2 mother has argued in the same vein and similar contentions are urged in W.P.100187/2021. -8-
7. Heard the counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and the counsel appearing for respondents.
8. These two petitions are filed after inordinate delay of ten years. On meticulous examination of records, this Court is more than satisfied that these two petitions are filed in collusion with each other.
W.P.No.100187/2005 was filed by defendants 2 and 4 to 6 challenging compromise recorded in O.S.No.1395/2009. Respondent No.1 tendered appearance and filed statement of objections. In the statement of objections, respondent No.1 contended that defendant No.2 was aware of the terms of compromise and she while representing the children i.e. plaintiff and defendants 2 and 4 to 6 has signed the compromise for herself and on behalf of the children. Respondent No.1 has further contended that if the terms of compromise were not acceptable to defendant No.2, there was no impediment for defendant No.2 to reject the proposal.
9. Defendants 2 and 4 to 6 on receipt of statement of objections filed transposition application in -9- W.P.100187/2021. Defendants 4 to 6 also filed independent writ petition in W.P.No.107712/2023. Para 5 and 6 of the writ petition would throw a lot of light in the manner in which the present petitioners have tried to overcome the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.1395/2009. Para 5 and 6 would be relevant and the same is extracted as under:
"5. The parties admit that, suit RCC house VPC No.112/B of Gadyal Tq: Jamakhandi has fallen to the share Plaintiff and Defendants No.2 Kasturi jointly and they are in possession of the same as absolute owners.
6. The parties admit that, the defendant No.1 has paid Rs. 1,75,000/- to the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and they are the owners of the same. "
10. Defendant No.2 along with her daughters initially questioned the compromise decree in W.P.No.100187/2021. The averments in the writ petition are verified by defendant No.2 on behalf of her daughters. The verifying affidavit would be relevant and the same is extracted as under:
"VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT Herein I, Smt. Kasturi W/o Iragouda Kumathalli, Age: 64 Years, Occ: Household Work, R/o: Gadyal, Tq:
- 10 -
Jamakhandi, Dist: Bagalkot, today at Dharwad, do hereby state on solemn affirmation are as under:-
1. That, I am the Petitioner No. 1 in the above Writ petition, and Petitioners No. 2 to 4 are my daughters.
I know the facts of the case. Hence I am swearing this affidavit for myself and on behalf of other petitioner also.
2. The statement made in Paragraphs No. 1 to 27 of the Writ Petition accompanying this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information.
3. The documents marked as Annexure-A to D are the certified copies and Annexure-E, is the original and Annexure-F is the true copy of the original."
11. On meticulous reading of pleadings in the writ petition filed by the daughters, the daughters have not seriously questioned the conduct of defendant No.2/mother, who has entered into compromise on behalf of herself and the daughters, who are defendants 4 to 6. Having got themselves transposed as respondents in W.P.100187/2021, the daughters with an ulterior motive have attributed allegations against defendant No.2 alleging that they have lost faith in their mother. This is clearly an after thought and the conduct of daughters, in getting themselves transposed in the first writ petition and then filing a independent writ petition clearly reflects oblique
- 11 -
motive. The action of daughters in filing an independent writ petition is seriously tainted with malafides.
12. On examining the first writ petition, this Court is more than satisfied that there is no dispute between mother and daughters. The transposing application and independent writ petition filed by daughters is clearly intended to overcome the compromise decree. On examining the records, defendant No.2 based on a registered GPA executed by her daughters has agreed to compromise the matter. The daughters/defendants 4 to 6 have voluntarily given up their shares in the properties in 2010. Defendant No.2 and plaintiff have received a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- and one residential house. The parties were represented by their respective counsel and were identified by the respective counsels. The Lok adalath has verified the veracity of settlement and on satisfaction, has recorded compromise.
13. The contention of petitioners in both the petitions that they were not properly identified by their
- 12 -
respective counsel and therefore, there is a foul play cannot be acceded to. The contention of petitioners that only 8 acres of agricultural land bearing Survey No.681 was the subject-matter, while compromise is recorded by adding additional four acres is also misconceived. Defendant No.8, who is the brother of defendant No.1, was already allotted four acres in Survey No.681 and he was arrayed as defendant No.8 as there was no partition insofar as the residential houses are concerned. Therefore, while allotting residential house to defendant No.8, the parties to the suit have admitted that western portion measuring 4 acres 17 guntas in Survey No.681 is owned by defendant No.8. While recording compromise, the joint family members are entitled to include all the properties to give a quietus to the differences and disputes once for all. The inclusion of 4 acres 17 guntas does not render the compromise void. The parties have only acknowledged that 4 acres 17 guntas in Survey No.681 is owned by defendant No.8.
- 13 -
14. Time and again, this Court in catena of judgments has held that voluntary settlement recorded by the parties in a pending civil proceeding has to be placed at a higher pedestal. The compromise recorded by the Lok Adalath and Courts have a sanctity and honor. The voluntary settlements in pending suits cannot be casually interfered unless there is credible evidence to substantiate that fraud is played on litigants and non-indulgence by the Courts will lead to miscarriage of justice.
15. Compromises recorded by Lok Adalats should not be casually interfered with due to the principle of finality and certainty they bring to legal disputes. Lok Adalats are designed to provide swift and amicable resolution to conflicts, helping to reduce the burden on the formal judicial system. Once a compromise is reached and recorded, it signifies the end of litigation for the involved parties. Interfering with such agreements disrupts this finality, leading to prolonged disputes and uncertainty, which contradicts the very purpose of Lok Adalats.
- 14 -
16. Moreover, the nature of these compromises is voluntary and mutually agreed upon by the disputing parties. The involvement of both parties in reaching an agreement suggests that the resolution is fair and acceptable to both sides. This consensual aspect is crucial as it reflects the true intentions and desires of the parties, often leading to more satisfactory and sustainable outcomes compared to court-imposed judgments. Casual interference with these agreements undermines the autonomy of the parties and the respect for their voluntary settlement.
17. The presence of legal counsels who guide and advise the parties further strengthens the validity of these compromises. When a joint compromise petition is signed by both parties and their respective counsels, it indicates that the parties had access to legal advice and understood the legal implications of their agreement. This professional involvement acts as a safeguard against unfair terms and
- 15 -
ensures that the parties' rights and interests are adequately protected.
18. Additionally, the practice of explaining the compromise terms in the vernacular language of the parties ensures full comprehension of the agreement. This measure is vital in preventing misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the compromise terms. When parties fully understand the agreement, it reduces the likelihood of future disputes over the terms and conditions, promoting lasting resolution and peace.
19. The delay of 10 years since the compromise was recorded adds another layer of complexity to the matter. Over such a long period, circumstances surrounding the dispute and the lives of the parties may have significantly changed. Reopening the case after such a long delay could lead to unfairness and additional complications. It could also encourage parties to contest settled matters long after they have been resolved, leading to legal instability.
- 16 -
20. Lastly, judicial efficiency is a critical concern. Lok Adalats play a significant role in alleviating the case backlog in courts. If compromises recorded by them are casually interfered with, it would undermine the effectiveness of this alternative dispute resolution mechanism. The courts would be burdened with an influx of cases that were previously settled, defeating the purpose of Lok Adalats and putting additional pressure on an already overburdened judicial system.
21. Therefore, unless there are compelling reasons such as fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation, recorded compromises by Lok Adalats should be upheld to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the dispute resolution process.
22. The compromise decree cannot be tested after lapse of 10 years. It is not only voluntary settlement between the branch of defendant No.1 but the settlement also extends to the brother of defendant No.1 who is arrayed as defendant No.8. Pursuant to settlement, rights
- 17 -
of defendant No.8 and other parties have stood crystallized. There is no convincing explanation forthcoming in both the petitions for having kept quite for close to 11 years.
23. On examining the material on record, this Court has found that the conduct of defendants 4 to 6 is grossly unfair and no credible evidence is placed to substantiate how the compromise decree is tainted with fraud and misrepresentation. These petitions are also liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate of delay.
24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petitions are devoid of merits and accordingly stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-.