Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmidevamma K vs Smt Shantha on 23 February, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
R.F.A No.1639/2016
BETWEEN :
--------------
Smt.Lakshmidevamma K
Aged about 78 years
D/o T N Krishnaiah
W/o Somasunder
R/@ No.62/3, 9th cross
Wilson Garden
Bengaluru - 560 027. ... APPELLANT
(By Sri V B Shivakumar, Advocate)
AND :
-------
1. Smt.Shantha
Aged about 59 years
W/o B S Indushekaran
R/@ No.14, 5th Cross
Baroda Bank Layout
7th phase, J.P Nagar
Bengaluru - 560 078.
2. Sri Naveen Indushekar
Aged about 38 years
S/o B S Indushekaran
R/@ No.14, 5th Cross
2
Baroda Bank Layout
7th phase, J.P Nagar
Bengaluru - 560 078.
3. Sri Srikantaprasad M S
Aged about 52 years
S/o Lakshmidevamma K
And Somasunder
R/@ No.2110, 10th cross
Sanjeevininagar
Bengaluru - 560 092.
4. M.S.Sudha @ Sudha Baragur
Aged about 49 years
D/o Lakshmidevamma K
And Somasunder
R/@ No.369, "Apporva",
3rd main, BSK 3rd Stage
CKA Layout
Bengaluru - 560 085.
5. M.S.Jayashree
Aged about 44 years
D/o Lakshmidevamma K
And Somasunder
R/@ No.65, 2nd floor
31 "A" Cross, 22nd Main
Tilaknagar, Jayanagar
Bengaluru - 560 041.
6. Srikantha M.S
Aged about 43 years
D/o Lakshmidevamma K
And Somasunder
R/@ No.62/3, 9th Cross Road
Wilson Garden
Bengaluru - 560 027. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri H S Dwarakanath, Advocate for R1 & R2-V.C.
v/o dtd. 5.8.2021, R3 to R6 are deleted)
3
This RFA is filed under Section 96(1) of CPC., 1908 against
the order dated:14.06.2016 passed in OS.No.3511/2016 on the file
of the LXVI additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru,
allowing IA No.IV filed under order VII Rule 11 of CPC., rejection of
plaint and consequently plaint is rejected.
This RFA coming on for Orders this day, SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR J, delivered the following;
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. The appellant - plaintiff, aggrieved by the order
dated 14.06.2016 passed in O.S. No. 3511/2016 by the LXVI
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City,
Bengaluru (CCH 67) on I.A. No. IV rejecting the plaint under
Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has preferred
this appeal.
3. The appellant - plaintiff and others had filed a suit in
O.S. No. 3511/2016 seeking the following reliefs:
a. For a Decree of perpetual injunction restraining the
Defendants or through any other person or persons
restraining them from alienating the Suit Schedule B
Property in any manner as the Defendants having no
power or right over the Schedule Property.
b. To declare that the Final Decree dated 15.11.2010
passed in OS No. 1190/1980 obtained by the Defendant
No. 1 is not binding on the Plaintiffs.
c. To declare that the registered Gift deed dated
10.03.2016, executed by Defendant No. 1 in favor of
Defendant No. 2, Amalgamation Deed dated 12.03.2016
executed by Defendant No. 2 of the suit schedule B
property is not binding on the Plaintiffs.
d. To declare that the compromised decree passed in OS
No. 1190/1980 dated 09.06.1983 entered into between
the Defendant No. 1 and late T.N. Krishnaiah are not
binding on the Plaintiffs and the same are null and void
and further declare that the Defendants did not get any
right or power on the suit schedule B property on the
basis of the said court decree and deeds.
e. For costs and such other reliefs as this Honorable Court
may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of
the case including costs in the interest of justice and
equity.
4. Defendant No.2 after appearance, had filed I.A.
No. IV under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC
praying to reject the plaint on the ground that it is barred
under Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC. The trial Court by the
impugned order has allowed I.A. No. IV filed under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint on the ground that the
suit is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC as the
plaintiffs have challenged the compromise decree passed in
O.S. No. 1190/1980.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant -
plaintiff has contended that the suit is maintainable as the
plaintiffs have not only sought for declaration that the
compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 1190/1980 is not
binding but also have sought for other reliefs. The learned
counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 placing reliance on the
decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Triloki Nath
Singh Vs. Anirudh Singh (Dead) through legal
representatives and others, reported in (2020) 6 SCC 629
and Sree Surya Developers and Promoters Vs. N. Sailesh
Prasad and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 439 and 440-
441/2022 decided on 09.02.2022 has contended that the
validity of the compromise decree has to be decided and
considered by the Court which passed the decree on an
application under Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant - plaintiff
conceding the law laid down in the aforesaid decision has
filed I.A. No. 1/2022 under Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC seeking
withdrawal of the suit in O.S. No. 3511/2016 on the file of
LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
City, Bengaluru (CCH 67) and consequently permit to
withdraw R.F.A. No. 1639/2016 with liberty to initiate
appropriate proceedings questioning the legality, validity and
otherwise of the compromise/settlement in O.S. No.
1190/1980 compromised on 09.06.1983 and decreed on
13.03.1984.
7. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2
has submitted that reserving liberty to respondent Nos. 1 and
2 to take all contentions the said prayer sought for by the
appellant - plaintiff may be allowed.
8. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid
decisions, the relief sought for by the appellant - plaintiff in
I.A. No.1/2022 deserves to be considered. In the result, we
pass the following;
ORDER
I. The appeal is partly allowed. The order on I.A.IV
passed in O.S. No.3511/2006 dated 14.6.2016 is set
aside.
II. The original suit in O.S. No. 3511/2016 on the file of
LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City, Bengaluru (CCH 67) stands
withdrawn and the present appeal also stands
withdrawn with liberty to the plaintiffs to initiate
appropriate proceedings questioning the legality,
validity and otherwise of the compromise/settlement
in O.S. No.1190/1980 compromised on 09.06.1983
and decreed on 13.03.1984.
III. All contentions of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are kept
open.
IV. Registry to refund the admissible Court Fee to the
appellant - plaintiff.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
LRS.
