Karnataka High Court
Sri.Veeragouda S/O Lagamagouda ... vs Sri Kamagouda on 3 February, 2023
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
WP No. 102369 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 102369 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.VEERAGOUDA S/O.LAGAMAGOUDA PATIL,
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY
1A. SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O.VEERAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE- 62 YEARS, OCC-HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.BOMMANAL, TAL-ATHANI,
DIST-BELAGAVI.
1B. SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O.ASHOK PATIL,
AGE-48 YEARS, OCC-HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.UADAGAV, TAL-SHIROL, DIST-KOLHAPUR,
STATE- MAHARASHTRA
1C. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O.DHAREPPA KOTTALAGI,
AGE-46 YEARS, OCC-HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.GOKUL SHIRAGAVN,
TALUK-KARVEERN, DIST-KOLHAPUR,
STATE-MAHARASTRA.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
1D. SMT. BHAGYASHREEW/O.ANAND PATIL,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
AGE- 44 YEARS, OCC-HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Date: 2023.02.07 12:05:14
R/O.DESHING, TAL-KAVATE MAHANKAL,
+0530
DIST-SANGLI, STATE-MAHARASTRA.
1E. BHARAMAGOUDA S/O.VEERAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE-42 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,
R/O.BOMMANAL, TAL-ATHANI,
DIST-BELAGAVI.
1F. SMT. GANGUTAI W/O.PRAKASH PATIL,
AGE-42 YEAS, OCC-HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-2-
WP No. 102369 of 2017
R/O.SAVALAJ, TAL-TASAGAON,
DIST-BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI KAMAGOUDA S/O.RUDRAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: BOMMANAL, TALUK: ATHANI
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
2. SRI BABAGOUDA S/O.RUDRAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: BOMMANAL, TALUK: ATHANI
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
3. SRI SIDRAY S/O.TATYASAB PATIL,
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BOMMANAL, TALUK: ATHANI
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
4. SRI PARAGOUDA S/O.LAGAMAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: BOMMANAL,TALUK: ATHANI
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
5. SHIVAGOUDA S/O.LAGAMAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: BOMMANAL, TALUK: ATHANI
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
6. SRI SIDRAYA S/O. LAGAMAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: BOMMANAL, TALUK: ATHANI
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.R.PATIL AND SRI S.G. KADADAKATTI AND SRI
K.R.HOSPETI, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(BY SRI GIRISH S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.2, 4 to 6)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.3-SERVED)
-3-
WP No. 102369 of 2017
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED DECREE DATED 04.08.2001 IN O.S.NO.457/2000
PASSED BY THE LOK ADALAT AND CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN)
ATHANI IN VIDE ANNEXURE-'A'.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned order
dated 04.08.2001 passed in O.S.No.457/2000 by the Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn.) Athani, whereby the compromise said to
have been entered between the respondents herein was
accepted by the Trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel
for the respondent Nos.2, 4 to 6. Perused the material on
record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions
urged in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners
invites my attention to the compromise decree in order to
point out that petitioners' father was originally arrayed as
WP No. 102369 of 2017
plaintiff No.1, while plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and defendant
Nos.1 and 2 were the original defendants, who are arrayed
as respondents to the present petition. It is submitted that
through the1st plaintiff had not given any instructions or
authorization to the 2nd plaintiff/Paragouda Lagamagouda
Patil, hefiled an application before the Trial Court seeking
deletion of the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 on 04.08.2001,
pursuant to which petitioner/plaintiff No.1 was deleted.
Subsequent thereto, plaintiffs No.2 to 4 and defendants
i.e., respondents herein entered into a settlement and
purported to compromise the matter. After coming know
about the compromise in the absence of petitioner/plaintiff
No.1, who had not given his consent to be deleted from
the array of party, petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.6/2002
challenging the compromise decree. So also, the 3rd
respondent herein also filed one more suit in
O.S.No.372/2002 for declaration that he was the owner of
the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. Both the
suits having been clubbed together, the Trial Court
WP No. 102369 of 2017
proceeded to pass the common Judgment and Decree
dated 30.11.2016, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the
suit by holding that a separate suit was not maintainable
and only the remedy available to the petitioner under
Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. Under
these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court by
way of the present petition.
4. The material on record also discloses that
respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein who joined the
petitioner/plaintiff in instituting O.S.No.6/2002 also was
not arrayed as party to O.S.No.457/2000 and respondent
Nos.1 and 2 herein are also aggrieved by the impugned
compromise decree passed in O.S.No.457/2000.
5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for
petitioners, despite their being no material to indicate that
the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 i.e., Veeragouda S/o.
Lagamagouda Patil voluntarily got himself deleted from
O.S.No.457/2000 and despite respondent Nos.1 and 2
herein not being made parties to the said
WP No. 102369 of 2017
O.S.No.457/2000, the Trial Court has proceeded to record
a compromise and pass the impugned compromise decree
in the absence of plaintiff No.1-Veeragouda as well as
respondent Nos.1 and 2, which is sufficient to vitiate the
impugned compromise decree and consequently, the
impugned compromise decree deserves to be set aside
and remand the matter back to the Trial Court for
reconsideration afresh. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned compromise decree dated
04.08.2001 in O.S.No.457/2000 by the Lok
Adalat and Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Athani is
hereby set aside. Consequently, suit is
restored to file of the Trial Court.
iii. Matter is remitted back to the Trial Court
for reconsideration afresh in accordance
with law.
iv. The Trial Court is directed to proceed
further and dispose of the suit on merits in
accordance with law after providing
WP No. 102369 of 2017
sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all
parties.
v. All rival contentions between the parties are
kept open and no opinion is expressed on
the same.
vi. The Trial Court is further directed to
implead both petitioners and respondent
Nos.1 and 2 as parties to the suit and
proceed further thereafter in accordance
with law.
SD
JUDGE
CKK
