Karnataka High Court
Nalina vs Nanjappa Alias Nanjaiah on 13 June, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.9985/2022(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. NALINA
D/O. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O VEERABHADRESHWAR TEMPLE,
DEVARAYAPATNA,
TUMAKURU - 572 101
2. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA,
W/O. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O. HUNJANALU VILLAGE,
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI,
SIRA TALUKA,
TUMAKURU - 572 137
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI JAGADISH T. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. NANJAPPA ALIAS NANJAIAH,
S/O. LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
2
HUNJANALU VILLAGE,
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI,
SIRA TALUKA,
TUMAKURU - 572 137
2. SHIVANNA,
S/O. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O BOMMEGOWDANAPALYA,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU - 572 101
3. SUMA
D/O. NANJAPPA,
W/O. PRABHULINGAYYA,
TIPPUR VILLAGE,
GUBBI TALUK - 572 216
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
K.I.A.D.B.,
MARUTHI TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR,
BESIDE S.I.T. COLLEGE,
B.H. ROAD,
TUMAKURU - 572 103
... RESPONDENTS
------
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DTD.31.05.2008 PASSED BY THE LOK ADALAT IN
O.S.NO.390/2008 AS PER ANNEXURE - H ON THE
FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.)
TUMAKURU.
3
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed questioning
the order of compromise decree passed by Lok
Adalath in O.S. No.390/2008.
2. The 2nd respondent herein namely Shivanna
filed a suit for partition and separate possession in
O.S. No.390/2008. The present petitioner No.1 who
was arrayed as 3rd defendant, her father i.e.
respondent No.1 and the 3rd respondent engaged a
lawyer and the matter was referred to Lok Adalat to
report settlement, if any. Before Lok Adalat, present
petitioner No.1 along with respondent Nos.1 and 3
engaged a lawyer and filed a compromise petition
under Order XXIII. In terms of compromise, the
present petitioner No.1 and respondent Nos.1 and 3
agreed to give up their share in the suit schedule
property by taking Rs.75,000/- each. The
compromise petition is signed by the 1st petitioner
and the 1st respondent who was arrayed first
defendant and respondent No.3 who was arrayed as
2nd defendant. The Lok Adalat having verified the
terms of settlement, has admitted the compromise
petition and proceeded to pass a decree in terms of
compromise petition filed by the parties. The
compromise is recorded on 31.05.2008.
3. After lapse of 14 years, the present writ petition
is filed by the 1st petitioner by alleging that the 2nd
petitioner was not at all a party to the compromise.
The petitioners have also contended that the
compromise recorded in O.S. No.390/2008 is tainted
with fraud and misrepresentation.
4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners.
Perused the terms of the compromise petition, which
is produced at Annexure - G to the writ petition. I
have also given my anxious consideration to the
grounds urged in the present writ petition.
5. At paragraph 16 of petition, it is worth to note
that the 1st petitioner herein has not at all denied the
alleged payment made while recording compromise.
All that is stated in the petition is that the very
payment of Rs.75,000/- is under doubt. The 2nd limb
of argument and contentions raised by petitioners is
that, the 2nd petitioner who is wife of the 1st
respondent who is entitled for maintenance is not
made a party. If 1st petitioner's father i.e. the 1st
respondent herein was party to the compromise, then
nothing prevented present petitioner No.1 and 1st
respondent to bring to the notice of the Court that the
2nd petitioner who is the 2nd wife of the Nanjappa i.e.
1st respondent is not party to the proceedings.
Material on record clearly indicates that they have
voluntarily appeared before the Court and after
engaging a counsel have got the matter referred to
the Lok Adalat to work out amicable settlement and in
terms of compromise petition, they have accepted a
sum of Rs.75,000/- each and they have given up their
right in the suit schedule property.
6. By looking to the bald allegations made in the
petition alleging that compromise petition is tainted
with fraud, cannot suffice and this Court cannot
examine the compromise recorded way back in 2008.
A compromise recorded at the instance of the litigants
has to be treated at higher pedestal. If the litigants
themselves come forward and work out settlement
after negotiation and thereafter file a compromise
petition and if the same is accepted, mere allegation
that the compromise was obtained by way of fraud
and misrepresentation would not be sufficient. This
Court is of the view that petitioners are also guilty on
account of laxness on their part for having kept quite
for almost 14 years. Now they intend to get over the
compromise recorded before the Lok Adalat. No
materials are placed on record indicating that the
respondents have indulged in playing fraud on them.
What is the nature of misrepresentation is also not
forthcoming. These allegations cannot be entertained,
because they were effectively represented by an
Advocate before the Lok Adalat. Therefore, the
grounds urged in the writ petition cannot be
entertained at this juncture. If the rights are
crystallized pursuant to compromise decree passed in
O.S. No.390/2008, the same cannot be set at naught
on bald allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. I
do not find any valid ground to interfere with the
compromise decree recorded by the Lok Adalat, way
back in 2008. The judgment cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioners in the case of Ananthajah
Versus. Smt. Gangamma and Others - 2015 (3)
KCCR 2106 has no application to the present case.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sbs*
