Karnataka High Court
M. Ramachandra vs Chinnappa on 29 March, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.10627 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
M RAMACHANDRA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1. SRI R NAGARAJ
S/O LATE M RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO.39, 5TH CROSS
VASANTHNAGAR
BENGALURU-560 052.
2. SMT. M MANJULA
S/O LATE SRI M RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.39, 5TH CROSS
VASANTHNAGAR
BENGALURU-560 052.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SEENAPPA K AND SRI C S VINOD, ADVOCATES)
AND
CHINNAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
GOWRAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.
2
RAMAMURTHY
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1. SMT. GEETHA
W/O LATE RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT NO.1036, ADISHAKTH NILAYA
I CROSS, NAGARATHPET MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 002.
2. SRI SOMU
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
3. SRI RADHAKRISHNA
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
4. SRI BABU
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
5. SRI HARISH
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R2 TO 5 ARE R/OF
MUNISWAMAPPA GULLI
THIGALARAPET
BENGALURU-560 002.
M SRINIVAS
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
YASHODAMMA
SINDE DEAD BY HER LRS.
6. SMT. S PUSHPALATHA
D/O LATE M SRINIVAS
3
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
7. SMT. S NIRMALA
D/O LATE M SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
8. SMT. S VIJAYAKUMAR
D/O LATE M SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R6 TO 8 ARE R/AT NO.5
ALRAJU MUNISWAMAPPA LANE
THIGALARAPET
BENGALURU-560 002
M KRISHNAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
9. SMT. YASHODAMMA
W/O LATE M KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
10. SMT. SHIVAKUMARI P
W/O LATE ANAND KUMAR K @ ANAND
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
11. SMT. SOUMYA A
D/O LATE ANAND KUMAR K @ ANAND
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
12. SMT. MEGHASHRI A
D/O LATE ANAND KUMAR K @ ANAND
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
13. SMT. SNEHA A
D/O LATE ANAND KUMAR K @ ANAND
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R9 TO 13 ARE R/AT
4
NO.5 PVN LANE
I CROSS NAGRATHPETE
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560 002.
14. SRI RAJANNA
S/O LATE M KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.94/1, 1ST CROSS
BAZAR STREET, VANNARPET
VIIVEKNAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560 047.
15. SMT. K SHOBHA
D/O M KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/AT NO.18, OPP. VELLAIRAMMA TEMPLE
VANNARPET
BENGALURU-560 047.
16. SMT. K RAJESHWARI
D/O M KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT NO.840, 6TH CROSS
10TH MAIN ROAD, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 047.
17. SRI GOPAL K CHOWLA
S/O H KESHAVDAS
AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS
SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS
NO.11/3, SADARAPATRAPPA ROAD
18. SMT. NIRMALA S
W/O LATE SRINIVAS K
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
19. SMT. SUNIL KUMAR S
5
S/O LATE SRINIVAS K
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
20. SMT. BANUPRIYA S
D/O LATE SRINIVAS K
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R18 TO 20 ARE RESIDENTS OF
NO.5, ALRAJU MUNISWAMY LANE
THIALARAPET
BENGALUR-560 002.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S P SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. MAMATA G KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R14 TO 16;
NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED
06.12.2021)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 19) N FINAL DECREE
PROCEEDINGS NO.75 OF 2000 DATED 15TH FEBRUARY, 2020
VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the legal representatives of
the plaintiff No.3 in Original Suit No.2741 of 1980 and the legal
representatives of petitioner No.3 in Final Decree Proceedings
No.75 of 2000 on the file of VII Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru allowing the petition.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this Writ Petition
are that, plaintiff in Original Suit No.2741 of 1980 filed suit for
partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule
property and the said suit came to be decreed as per the
judgment and decree dated 30th September, 1985. Thereafter,
plaintiffs in the suit preferred Final Decree Proceedings No.75 of
2000 before the trial Court under Order XX Rule 12 of Code of
Civil Procedure to draw the Final Decree Proceedings. At the
time of filing of the Final Decree Proceedings, original plaintiff
No.3-M. Ramachandra had died and as such, the petitioners
herein have come on record as the legal representatives of the
deceased plaintiff No.3. The trial Court in Final Decree
Proceedings No.75 of 2000, by impugned order dated 15th
February, 2020 allowed the petition in terms of the compromise
petition dated 16th November, 2019. Being aggrieved by the
same, the legal representatives of the plaintiff No.3 have
preferred this Writ Petition.
3. Heard Sri Seenappa, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Sri S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Smt. Mamata G. Kulkarni, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents 14 to 16.
4. Sri Seenappa, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners contended that the parties to the suit have entered
into compromise petition behind the back of the petitioners
(legal representatives of plaintiff No.3) and therefore, the said
Compromise Petition produced at Annexure-C is non-est. He
further submitted that the Final Decree Proceedings came to be
disposed in terms of the compromise petition dated 16th
November, 2019 and therefore, the impugned order passed by
the trial Court is void in the eye of law in respect of the
petitioners are concerned. To buttress his arguments, he relied
upon the judgment of this court in the case SRI. ANANTHAIAH v.
SMT. GANGAMMA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2014 KAR 6358
and contended that this court is having jurisdiction to entertain
the Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India as the petitioners have alleged an element of fraud by
the respondents herein. Accordingly, he sought for interference
of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents 14 to 16, contended that there is
no material illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and
the same has been passed based on the compromise petition
entered into between the parties. The learned Senior Counsel
further contended that though the suit was decreed on 30th
September, 1985, however, the parties to the suit are not able
to enjoy the fruits of the decree for a considerable period and
therefore, the said aspect has been considered by the trial Court
in Final Decree Proceedings and accordingly, there is no
perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. Learned Senior
Counsel further contended that the Writ Petition itself is not
maintainable as the Final Decree Proceedings is concluded. In
order to buttress his arguments he places reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of THE
MANAGING DIRECTOR, HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED,
BALANGAR, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER v. AJIT PRASAD
TARWAY, MANAGER, HYDERABAD reported in AIR 1973 SC 76;
in the case of K. ARJUN DAS v. COMMISSIONER OF
ENDOWMENTS, ORISSA AND OTHERS reported in (2019)10 SCC
355; and in the case of N. SANKARANARAYANAN v. CHAIRMAN,
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS reported in
(2020)14 SCC 457 and therefore, learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the Writ Petition be dismissed in limine.
6. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, the following points would
arise for determination in this petition:
1. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable against
the order dated 15th February, 2020 in Final
Decree Proceedings No.75 of 2000?
2. Whether the impugned order is illegal and
requires interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India?
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, particularly with regard to the preliminary objection
raised by the learned Senior Counsel, I have carefully examined
the Compromise Petition dated 16th November, 2019 (Annexure-
C). Undisputably, legal representatives of the third
plaintiff/petitioners herein and their Advocate on record have not
signed the Compromise Petition produced at Annexure-C. In
that view of the matter, the Compromise Petition is not binding
on the petitioners herein. It is the case of the petitioners that
the said compromise has been entered into by the parties behind
their back and have also alleged an element of fraud on the part
of the parties to the compromise petition. On careful
examination, the trial Court in Final Decree Proceedings No.75 of
2000, passed the impugned order allowing the petition in terms
of compromise petition dated 16th November, 2019 and since the
said compromise petition is not binding on the legal
representatives of the plaintiff No.3/petitioners herein, and
having taken the ground of fraud on the part of the parties to
the compromise petition, I am of the view that the law declared
by this Court in the case of SRI ANANTHAIAH (supra) is aptly
applicable to the case on hand holding that there is material
illegality and therefore, I am of the view that Writ Petition is
maintainable exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the impugned order passed by the
trial Court. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the
affirmative and in favour of the petitioners.
8. As regards argument advanced the learned Senior
Counsel placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court is concerned, I have carefully considered the law
declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MANAGING
DIRECTOR, HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED (supra). The
observation made at paragraph 5 of the judgment reads thus:
"5. In our opinion the High Court had no
jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first
appellate court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court
that the first appellate court had no jurisdiction to make
the order that it made. The order of the first appellate
court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with
law or may not be in accordance with law; but one thing
is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is
not the case that the first appellate court exercised its
jurisdiction cither illegally or with material irregularity.
That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its
jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure
Code: See the decisions of this Court in Pandurang Dkoni
Chougule v. Maruti Hari Madhav , D.L.F. Housing &
Construction Company Private Ltd., v. Samp Singh and
Ors.
(emphasis supplied)
9. I have also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of K. ARJUN DAS (supra) and the facts of
the said case is not applicable to the facts on hand, as the
petitioners in the instant case, have alleged an element of fraud
by the parties to the compromise petition and therefore, there is
no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned senior
counsel.
10. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, I have
carefully appreciated the finding recorded by the trial Court. The
trial Court, in the impugned order, without applying the mind as
to whether the legal representatives of plaintiff No.3 (petitioners
herein) are the parties to the compromise petition or not, has
straightaway disposed of the Final Decree Proceedings in terms
of the Compromise Petition dated 16th November, 2019 on the
ground that the plaintiff No.3 has been allotted more extent of
property in the schedule. The trial Court ought to have noticed
the fact that the petitioners herein are not the signatories to the
compromise petition and hence the same is not binding on them.
When such being the case, the trial Court ought not to have
disposed of the Final Decree Proceedings in terms of the
compromise petition in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of M/S. ESTRALLA RUBBER v. DASS
ESTATE (PRIVATE) LTD reported in (2001)8 SCC 97. In the said
judgment, at paragraphs 6, it is observed thus:
"6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and
jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is examined and explained in
number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power
under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to
keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of
their authority and to see that they do duty expected or
required by them in a legal manner. The High Court is not
vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds
of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of
the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals.
Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of
the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious
dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental
principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not
interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also
well settled that the High Court while acting under this
Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or
substitute its own judgment in place of that of the
subordinate court to correct an error, which is not
apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can
set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or
tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the
finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can
possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or
Tribunal has come to."
11. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court
referred to above, I am of the view that there is a flagrant
violation of fundamental principle of law and the intervention of
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
imperative. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. Writ petition is allowed;
2. Impugned order dated 15th February, 2020
passed in Final Decree Proceedings No.75 of 2000
is set aside and the matter is remanded to the
trial Court for disposal afresh, after affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties.
3. Since the parties to the Final Decree Proceedings
are represented through their learned counsel,
parties are directed to appear before the trial
Court on 22nd April, 2022 without waiting for any
notice in this regard.
4. Since the Final Decree Proceedings is of the year
2020, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the
proceeding within an outer limit of one year from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Parties to the proceedings are directed to co-
operate for early disposal of the proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE
lnn
