Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anusuya W/O Chandrashekhar vs Smt. Dyamavva W/O Bagav on 6 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15176
RSA No. 100666 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100666 OF 2018 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANUSUYA W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR BADIGER,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GALAGI VILLAGE-581204,
TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. DYAMAVVA
W/O. BAGAV BASAVANTAPPA KALASAGOUDRA,
AGE: 70 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE WIFE AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GALAGI. TQ. KALAGHATAGI,
DIST. DHARWAD-581204.
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR 2. GURUNATH S/O. GADIGEPPA DARAGAD,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT R/O. GALAGI. TQ. KAALGHATAGI,
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2025.11.07 DIST. DHARWAD-581204.
14:29:02 +0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND C/R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KALAGHATAGI IN R.A.NO.101/2015
DATED 02.07.2018 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN
O.S.NO.61/2013 DATED 13.11.2014 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC KALAGHATAGI AND DECREE THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.61/2013,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15176
RSA No. 100666 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment in R.A.No.101/2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaghatagi, which confirmed the dismissal of O.S.No.61/2013 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaghatagi, the plaintiff is before this Court in this appeal.
3. The facts that are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the plaintiff is claiming rights in respect of the property originally belonging to one Kalappa. It is contended that the suit schedule property is totally measuring 5 Acres 3 Guntas and out of which, 1 Acre 28 Guntas is situated at Hulakoppa village and it was partitioned among the said Kalappa, Dyamavva and the mother of defendant No.2, Yallavva. It was contended that Kalappa was unmarried and he had bequeathed his portion of 1 Acre 28 Guntas to the plaintiff under registered Will dated -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15176 RSA No. 100666 of 2018 HC-KAR 01.03.1989. It was further contended that the defendants' objection to mutate the name of the appellant in the records were dismissed by the Revenue Authorities and as such the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants are obstructing the same and as such, they may be restrained by permanent injunction.
4. The defendant No.1 and 2 appeared and contended that they had filed O.S.No.329/1992 against the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and it ended in compromise. As per the compromise, 20 guntas of land out of 5 Acres 3 Guntas was allotted to the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff and defendants are in possession.
5. After adducing the evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has suppressed the compromise decree entered into in O.S.No.329/1992 whereby the plaintiff has been allotted 20 guntas of land out of 5 Acres 3 Guntas. The pleadings of the plaintiff are contrary to the compromise decree in O.S.No.329/1992 and also that in the face of the compromise decree, the suit is not maintainable.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15176 RSA No. 100666 of 2018 HC-KAR
6. The plaintiff approached the First Appellate Court in appeal and the First appellate Court in its judgment noticed that the appellant had not only suppressed the outcome of O.S.No.329/1992 but she had also filed O.S.No.187/2014, which came to be dismissed. Therefore, there is material suppression of the facts by the plaintiff and as such, no ground is made out by the plaintiff.
7. It is pertinent to note that before the First Appellate Court, the appellant had filed an application to withdraw the said suit and file appropriate comprehensive suit. The First Appellate Court having found that the said application is not bonafide, the same came to be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the suit in O.S.No.329/1992 ended in compromise and an area measuring 20 Guntas was allotted to the plaintiff. It is submitted that there is obstruction by the defendants in respect of this 20 Guntas of land. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the claim of the plaintiff is not in respect of the said 20 Guntas of land, which was allotted in the compromise petition, but it is in respect of an -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15176 RSA No. 100666 of 2018 HC-KAR additional 20 Gunts of land, which is belonging to the defendants.
9. It is pertinent to note that the compromise decree in O.S.No.329/1992, having become final, has to be respected by both the parties. If at all the claim of the appellant/plaintiff is in respect of different property than what is mentioned in the compromise petition, then the same is not permissible, if the entire property was the subject matter of the compromise petition. If any property, which is not included in the compromise petition is the claim made by the plaintiffs, then such separate suit is maintainable. It is pertinent to note that 1 Acre 28 Guntas claimed by the plaintiff is part of the compromise decree in O.S.No.329/1992. Since it has become final, the question of challenging the same does not arise. An effort was made by the appellant by filing a suit in O.S.No.187/2014, which also came to be dismissed. It is not known why the said fact is not disclosed by the appellant in the present suit or the appeal. Anyhow, the right to question the decree in O.S.No.329/1992 has been lost by the appellant. In that view of the matter, the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court cannot be found fault with. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15176 RSA No. 100666 of 2018 HC-KAR Withdrawal of O.S.No.61/2013 with a liberty to file a fresh suit also is futile since the compromise decree has become final. So also another suit filed in O.S.No.187/2014 has also attained finality by the judgment dated 16.08.2018.
10. Learned counsel brings to the notice of this Court that after disposal of O.S.No.187/2014, the appellant has filed another suit in O.S.No.99/2018, which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Nothing prevented the appellant to file a comprehensive suit when she thought of filing O.S.No.99/2018. Therefore, no grounds are made out by the appellant in the present appeal to entertain the same. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
11. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE YAN/ CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17