Karnataka High Court
Smt. Doddawwa W/O Narayan Pujeri vs Shri Ramappa S/O Bhimappa Keri on 3 July, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
WP No. 107174 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.107174 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. DODDAWWA
W/O NARAYAN PUJERI,
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SHRI RAMAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA KERI,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
2. SHRI. VENKAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA KERI,
ASHPAK AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
Digitally signed by ASHPAK
KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2024.07.11 11:05:16
+0530
2(A). KAMALAVVA W/O VENKAPPA KERI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: YADWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
2(B). JAYASHREE
W/O BASANGOUDA LINGADALLI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: BABALESHWAR,
TQ: AND DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586113.
3. SHRI RANGAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA KERI,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
WP No. 107174 of 2023
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
4. SHRI ARJUN S/O BHIMAPPA KERI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
5. SHRI. LAXMAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA KERI,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
6. SHRI. HANUMANTH VENKAPPA KERI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
7. SHRI GURUNATH S/O RANGAPPA KERI
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
8. SHRI SHRINIVAS S/O RANGAPPA KERI
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YADAWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136.
9. DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
DALMIAPURAM, 621, 651, THIRUCHIRAPALLI
DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, HAVING ITS
MANUFACTURING PLANT AT: DALMIA CEMENT
(BHARAT) LIMITED,
R S NO.394, YADWAD VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591136, R/BY ITS AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY, MR. MAHESH MANNAPUR
S/O LACHCHAPPA MANNAPUR, AGE: 46 YEARS.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R9;
R1, R2, R2(A), R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8-NOTICE SERVED;
R2(B)-NOTICE RETURNED AS NO SUCH ADDRESSEE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
WP No. 107174 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY ORDER, WRIT TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE LOK ADALAT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, IN
O.S.NO.518/2018 DATED 07/03/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for respondent No.9. All other respondents
are though served with notice, remained unrepresented.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to
quash the order passed by the Lok Adalath of II Addl. Senior
Civil Judge, Gokak, in O.S.No.518/2018 dated 07.03.2020,
vide Annexure-D, wherein the compromise petition filed
under Order 23 Rule 3 read with section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure came to be allowed. The suit was decreed in
terms of the compromise entered into by the parties and
final decree was ordered to be drawn. It is the case of
petitioner herein that respondent No.1 had filed a suit for
partition and separate possession against the petitioner
herein and other respondents before the II Addl. Senior Civil
Judge, Gokak, in O.S.No.518/2018. Petitioner and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
respondents No.1 to 4 are brothers and sister and children of
Bhimappa Keri who is the propositus who died in the year
1992. His wife died in the year 2002. There is no dispute
with regard to respondent No.1 being the legal heir along
with the petitioner of late Bhimappa. In the matter before
the Civil Court, the defendants filed a joint memo under
Order 23 Rule 3 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure to compromise the matter. Accordingly a
compromise petition came to be filed by the parties seeking
to amicably settle the matter by virtue of the said
compromise petition which was read over and explained in
the language known to the parties. The petitioner and
respondents have signed the compromise petition and
executed compromise petition by affixing their signature
therein, accepted the compromise petition and the
compromise was allowed before the Lok Adalath.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
petitioner that as per the compromise petition respondents
No.1 to 4 have paid ten lakh rupees to the petitioner through
Axis Bank Mudhol branch bearing cheque No.007185. He
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
vehemently contends that on the completion of entire
process, the said cheque was snatched away from the
petitioner and nor paid the amount. Therefore, respondents
No.1 to 4 neither issued the cheque nor paid the cash to the
petitioner. Since from the decree of the judgment the
petitioner has been insisting the respondents to pay the
amount as per the compromise decree, but the respondents
No.1 to 4 on one reason or the other were postponing the
same and have not paid the amount to the petitioner as
agreed in the compromise till date.
4. It is further contended by the learned counsel by
way of his pleadings that the petitioner made efforts and
requested for issuance of fresh cheque in favour of the
petitioner, but the respondents have not agreed to pay the
same and therefore the respondents have played fraud,
obtained the signature on the petition forcefully and the
Court decreed the suit in their favour but have not acted
upon the said decree. Therefore, it is vehemently contended
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non acting
or non payment of the cheque as agreed to in the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
compromise petition executed by the petitioner and
respondents jointly of Rs.2,00,000/- each totaling to ten lakh
rupees through Axis Bank, Mudhol Branch amounts to
playing fraud by the defendants No.1 to 4 upon defendant
No.5 by convincing defendant No.5 to compromise the
petition on the assurance of giving cheque of ten lakh
rupees.
5. He also contends that she was induced into
signing the compromise petition and coerced to say so
before the Presiding Officer that she has received the
amount and later they were not ready to hand over the
cheque as compromised in the compromise petition and
thereafter despite her request to make payment, they have
not paid the amount and now it is learnt by the petitioner
that the said property is being alienated to the third party.
On these grounds he contends that the entire process of
execution and signature on the compromise petition is a
fraud played on the petitioner who was defendant No.5
before the trial Court. Therefore he seeks to set aside the
order passed by the Lok Adalath on the basis of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
fraudulent compromise and consequently set aside the
decree passed in O.S.No.518/2018 before the Lok Adalath.
6. The learned counsel relies upon the following two
judgments in support of his case.
i) K.Srinivasappa and Ors. Vs. M.Mallamma
and Ors., reportable judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3486-3488 of
2022 dated 18.05.2022.
ii) R.Janakiammal vs. S.K.Kumarasamy
(deceased) through legal representatives
and others, reported in (2021) 9 SCC 114.
7. Per contra, learned counsel representing
respondent No.9 vehemently contends that he is the
purchaser of the property in question from defendant No.2
i.e., respondent No.3 herein. He contends that the petition
filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law, so also on
the facts. The same is liable to be dismissed with costs. He
contends that, admittedly it is not the case of the petitioner
that she has not signed the compromise petition or that she
was not present before the Lok Adalath when the
compromise petition was executed and put into force before
the Lok Adalath. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
of the compromise, what was agreed to between the parties
has not been performed by none of the parties with regard to
payment of the amount as it is the allegation made.
However, the same is not accepted, it is denied.
8. He further contends that if at all any such
grievance is made out by the petitioner, the petitioner is at
liberty to enforce the compromise decree which is executed
before the Lok Adalath. Therefore he contends that the
present petition is not maintainable and the question of fraud
that is alleged by the petitioner herein in this case would not
amount to fraud as demonstrated by the petitioner in this
petition herself. Because it is not the case of petitioner that
she has not signed as stated earlier. At the cost of repetition,
the compromise petition has been signed by the petitioner,
executed by the petitioner who was present before the Lok
Aaalath, agreed to the terms and conditions of the
compromise and has kept quiet till the entire process of
compromise was over, not even uttering a word with regard
to the compromise being illegal or forceful or involuntary, or
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
there was any coercion, undue influence, inducement or
threat while executing the compromise.
9. Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, reads as under:
"3. Compromise of suit.--Where it is
proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit
has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful
agreement or compromise in writing and signed
by the parties, or where the defendant satisfies
the plaintiff in respect to the whole or any part of
the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall
order such agreement, compromise or
satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a
decree in accordance therewith so far as it
relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not
the subject-matter of the agreement,
compromise or satisfaction is the same as the
subject-matter of the suit:
Provided that where it is alleged by one
party and denied by the other that an adjustment
or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court
shall decide the question; but no adjournment
shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the
question, unless the Court, for reasons to be
recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment."
10. It is also necessary to extract section 21 of the
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which is as under:
"21. Award of Lok Adalat.--(1) Every
award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
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 court-free paid in
such case shall be refunded in the manner
provided under the Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of
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."
11. Therefore section 21 of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987, is akin and on par with the decree of
the Civil Court and is to be treated as final and binding on all
parties to the dispute. The same is reiterated in the case of
P.T.Thomas vs. Thomas Job, reported in (2005) 6 SCC
478, wherein it is held that section 21 has binding effect on
Lok Adalath in terms of the decree passed by the Civil Court,
and it has a binding effect which is conclusive. So also it is
held that it is permanent and is equivalent to a decree
executable.
12. What has to be seen by this court while
entertaining this petition is whether there has been any fraud
that has been proved and established and whether the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
compromise petition at the time of execution and the
decree/award being passed before the Lok-Adalath was
agitated or any objection was raised with regard to there
being any force, coercion, fraud or undue influence at the
time of presenting the said compromise petition or is it a
statement, which is made pursuant to the compromise
petition being filed and an award being passed before the
Lok-Adalath. In the present case on hand admittedly no such
statement or submission was made before the Trial Court or
before the Lok-Adalath with regard to force, coercion, fraud
or undue influence or inducement. Admittedly it is the case
of the petitioner that, subsequent to the judgment, the
award being passed before the Lok-Adalath and the amount
that was agreed in the compromise petition has not been
paid to the petitioner. Therefore, it amounts to fraud.
13. I am afraid of the said contention urged by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be sustained and
same is negatived as it runs contrary to the provisions of the
compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule III of CPC,
so also on the provision of Section 21 of the Legal Services
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
Authorities Act, 1987 and the judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court supra, wherein it is clearly held that the
compromise petition in normal circumstances is a creature of
an agreement between the parties to put an end and the
finality to the proceedings, so that an amicable resolution to
the dispute can be arrived at by putting quietus to the
litigation, in order to gain peace and live amicably thereafter.
Therefore, any compromise petition on the award passed
before the Lok-Adalath is as good as a decree drawn by the
Court and as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
judgments supra that it is an executable decree, if there is
any non-compliance of the said compromise decree.
14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
vehement arguments put forth by both the learned counsel
and on perusal of the petition averments and the
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is his
case that pursuant to the execution of the compromise
petition and the same having been recorded, executed and
award having been passed before the Lok-Adalath in terms
of the compromise, one of the terms of the compromise
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
petition for payment of amount has not been made in favour
of the petitioner, though, it is reflected by way of a cheque in
the compromise petition and even according to the
petitioner, in this petition, he has made a statement that he
has requested the respondents to make the payment in
terms of the compromise and the same was not made. That
being so, the ground of fraud, so alleged by the petitioner
herein cannot be accepted.
15. It appears that there is no compliance with regard
to the compromise petition executed by the parties according
to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner
could avail the remedy of enforcing the decree as it can be
enforced as a decree, though it is an award passed by the
Lok-Adalath under Section 21 of the Legal Services
Authorities Act. Therefore, this Court does not find any good
cogent reason or ground to interfere in the order passed by
the Civil Court regarding the compromise and the award
being passed by the Lok-Adalath. Accordingly, I pass the
following:
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9086
ORDER.
i) The petition is dismissed.
ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to enforce the
compromise petition, if at all there is no compliance or
breach of the terms and conditions of the compromise
executed by the parties before the Lok-Adalath.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRK-para 1 to 11.
VB-para 12 to end.
CT:BCK
