Shri.Basavraj S/O Kallappa ... vs Smt.Mallavva W/O Dulappa ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2451 Kant

                                        -1-
                                                   WP No. 117143 of 2019




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                DHARWAD BENCH

                    DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2023

                                     BEFORE
              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                  WRIT PETITION NO. 117143 OF 2019 (GM-RES)


             BETWEEN:

             1.   SHRI BASAVRAJ S/O. KALLAPPA NAGANUR,
                  AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                  R/O: BAGADAGERI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
                  DIST: DHARWAD.

             2.   SHRI MANJUNATH S/O. KALLAPPA NAGANUR,
                  AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                  R/O: BAGADAGERI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
                  DIST: DHARWAD.

             3.   SMT. ANNAPURNA D/O. KALLAPPA NAGANUR,
                  AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                  R/O: JAMBUR, TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
ROHAN
                  DIST: DHARWAD.
HADIMANI
T
High Court   4.   SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI W/O. GANGAPPA MISI,
of                AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Karnataka,
Dharwad           R/O: NAGANUR, TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
                  DIST: DHARWAD.

             5.   SMT. KALLAVVA W/O. KALLAPPA NAGANUR,
                  AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                  R/O: JAMBUR, TQ: KALAGHATAGI,
                  DIST: DHARWAD.
                                                           ...PETITIONERS

                   (BY SRI SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
                               -2-
                                          WP No. 117143 of 2019




AND:

    SMT.MALLAVVA W/O. DULAPPA TAVARAGERI,
    AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
    R/O: SHIVASHAKTI NAGAR,
    NEKAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI,
    TQ: HUBBALLI-580020,
    DIST: DHARWAD.
                                        ...RESPONDENT


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED DECREE PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE LOKADALAT, DHARWAD DATED 11/03/2019 IN
R.A.NO.274/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

Heard Sri Shivraj S. Balloli, learned counsel appearing

for petitioners.

2. Petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved

by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Principal Civil

Judge, (Sr. Dn.), Dharwad in O.S.No.443/2007 having

culminated into a regular appeal in R.A.No.274/2017, in

which appeal the parties to the proceedings that is

petitioners herein and respondent filed a compromise

petition when the matter was referred to Lok-Adalat,

WP No. 117143 of 2019

Dharwad and amicably resolved by way of compromise

decree dated 11.03.2019 vide Annexure-G.

3. It is the contention of learned counsel for

petitioners Sri Shivraj S. Balloli that the compromise

decree obtained by the respondent before the appellate

proceedings in R.A.No.274/2017 before the Lok-Adalat was

by playing fraud upon them and hence they are before this

Court to set aside the said compromise decree passed in

R.A.No.274/2017. He further contends that petitioners

were informed that the respondent would not claim any

right, title or interest over the suit property. But however

while recording the terms and conditions of the

compromise in writing the same was not put forth in the

said document of compromise. He also contends that what

was agreed to between the parties has not been put in

writing and is not reflected in the compromise deed so also

in the compromise decree before the Lok-Adalat, Dharwad.

Therefore, entire compromise deed is fraudulent and

vexatious as what was agreed to between them is not

WP No. 117143 of 2019

forthcoming in compromise deed and compromise decree

passed by the Lok-Adalat. Under these circumstances,

petitioners are before this Court to set aside the impugned

compromise decree passed by the Lok-Adalat, Dharwad

dated 11.03.2019 in R.A.No.274/2017.

4. I have perused the compromise petition preferred

by the parties and the compromise deed and decree before

the Lok-Adalat, Dharwad. It is not in dispute that the

petitioners as well as respondent are signatories to the

compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC,

1908. The compromise petition consists of two sketches,

one is a rough sketch and another one is typed sketch of

the properties that are allotted to each of the parties to the

compromise petition. It is also seen that all the parties to

the proceedings in R.A.No.274/2017 are signatories to the

compromise petition and based on the terms and

conditions, matter came to be settled before the Lok-

Adalat, Dharwad recording the terms and conditions

WP No. 117143 of 2019

entered into and agreed by the parties to the compromise

petition.

5. On perusal of the sketches annexed along with the

compromise petition nowhere in the sketch and

compromise petition, there is any objections raised by any

of the parties to the compromise entered into by them and

each party has signed the compromise petition and

sketches without reserving any objections or raising any

objections for recording of the terms and conditions of the

compromise.

6. Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act,

1987 deals with cognizance of cases by Lok-Adalats.

"20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.-- (1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19--1[20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.--(1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19--"

(i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or

(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such

WP No. 117143 of 2019

court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or

(ii) the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat:

the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat:

Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties."

7. Sub-Sections (3) to (7) of Section 20 of the Legal

Services Authorities Act, 1987 read as under :

"(3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties.

(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.

WP No. 117143 of 2019

(5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the court, from which the reference has been received under sub- section (1) for disposal in accordance with law.

(6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a court.

(7) Where the record of the case is returned under sub-section (5) to the court, such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under sub-section (1)."

8. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act,

1987 reads as under :

"21. Award of Lok Adalat.- (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section 20, the

WP No. 117143 of 2019

court-free paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870.

(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award."

9. Section 21 (2) reads that every award made by the

Lok-Adalat shall be final and binding on all parties and no

dispute shall be raised by way of an appeal against the said

award.

10. In the present case on hand, the parties to the

proceedings that is the petitioners as well as the

respondent are privy to the compromise petition and terms

and conditions executed by the parties for allotment of

their respective shares of property which is specifically

described in the compromise petition and also in the

sketches annexed long with compromise petition. So there

is a clear demarcation of the rights allotted to each of the

respective parties by virtue of the compromise petition

which is accepted and signed before the Lok-Adalat and

WP No. 117143 of 2019

based on which the Lok-Adalat has accepted the terms and

conditions of the compromise as no objection was raised by

any of the parties more specifically the petitioners herein.

11. Under the circumstances, the question of

interference by this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India would have to be on very careful

consideration of the terms and conditions entered into

between the parties and the grounds so raised by the

petitioners with regard to violation of terms and conditions

or any such fraud so alleged having been established and

shown to have been committed by the parties and the Lok-

Adalat. Only under such circumstances, it would be

appropriate for his Court to interfere under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India to set aside the compromise

decree passed by the Lok-Adalat, Dharwad. Up course, this

Court also can interfere if there is a violation of

fundamental principles of judicial procedure not being

followed by the Lok-Adalat, Dharwad in considering the

compromise petition and passing the compromise decree.

- 10 -

WP No. 117143 of 2019

12. In the present case, I do not find any such thing

forthcoming or shown by the petitioners to have been

violated by the Lok-Adalat or the fundamental principles of

judicial procedure blatantly not being followed. The only

grievance urged in the petition is a ground that the terms

and conditions so agreed have not been put into writing in

the compromise petition. Therefore, fraud has been played

by the respondent. Merely by usage of word 'fraud' the

petitioners would not able to succeed unless they show the

material fraud played by the respondent or by the Lok-

Adalat, Dharwad and hence having perused the

compromise petition and the compromise decree passed by

the Lok-Adalat, Dharwad and the grounds urged in the

present petition, I do not find any reason to interfere with

the compromise decree passed by the Lok-Adalat vide

Annexure-G dated 11.03.2019 as there is no illegality or

perversity committed or violative of fundamental principles

of procedures laid down in recording the compromise

petition and passing the compromise decree. Accordingly,

this petition deserves to be dismissed as no ground is

- 11 -

WP No. 117143 of 2019

made out to interfere with the compromise decree passed

by the Lok-Adalat vide Annexure-G dated 11.03.2019 in

R.A.No.274/2017. For this reason, petition is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

CKK