Karnataka High Court
Smt Rajeshwari W/O Shivanand Patil vs Smt Raghavendra S/O Iragouda ... on 25 July, 2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 107712 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.100187 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
WP NO.107712 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. SHIVANAND PATIL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCN: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GADYAL-587330, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. SMT. INDIRA W/O. BALCHANDRA TONASHYAL,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GADYAL-587330, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. SMT. SAROJINI W/O. ASHOK BYADAGI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. JAMBAGI B.K-587301,
NOW AT: GIRISH NAGAR,
OLD LIC OFFICE, 2ND CROSS,
JAMAKHANDI-587301, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCCN: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. GADYAL-587330, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
-2-
SHRI. IRAGOUDA S/O. LAXMAN KUMATHALLI,
SINCE DECEASED LRS.,
ALREADY ON RECORD AS PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 AND
RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 3 TO 5 IN THIS CASE.
2. SMT. KASUTRI W/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GADYAL-587330, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. SMT. SUMANGALA W/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCCN: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. TELSANG-591265, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. KUMARI LAXMI D/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCCN. NIL,
R/BY RESPONDENT NO.2
MOTHER AS A MINOR GUARDIAN,
R/O. TELSANG-591265, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SHRI. MALAGOUDA S/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCCN: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. TELSANG-591304,
NOW AT: NEAR FOREST OFFICE,
SHNATINAGAR, ATHANI,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED COMPROMISE DECREE IN O.S. NO.1395/2009
DATED 30.01.2010 (DECREE WAS SIGNED ON 24.04.2010)
RECORDED BY THE LOK ADALATH IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, ATHANI AND ONE OF THE CONCILIATOR
(ANNEXURE-D) TO THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
WP NO.100187 OF 2021
BETWEEN
SMT. KASTURI
W/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GADYAL, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587330.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.L. MATTI, ADV.)
AND:
1. SHRI. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. GADYAL, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587330.
SHRI. IRAGOUDA S/O. LAXMAN KUMATHALLI
SINCE DECEASED L.RS.
ALREADY ON RECORD AS PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 AND
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 IN THIS CASE
2. SMT. SUMANGALA W/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. TELSANG, TQ: ATHANII,
DIST: BELGAVI-591265.
3. KUMARI. LAXMI D/O. IRAGOUDA KUMATAHLLLI,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/BY RESPONDENT NO.2
MOTHER AS MINOR GUARDIAN
R/O. TELSANG, TQ: ATHANII,
DIST: BELGAVI-591265.
4. SHRI. MALAGOUDA S/O. LAXMAN KUMATHALLI,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. TELSANG, NOW AT. NEAR FOREST OFFICE,
-4-
SHANTINAGAR, ATHANI-591304
DIST: BELGAVI.
5. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. SHIVANAND PATIL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GADYAL, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587330.
6. SMT. INDIRA W/O. BALCHANDRA TONASHYAL,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GADYAL, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587330.
7. SMT. SAROJINI W/O. ASHOK BYADAGI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. JAMBAGI B.K.
NOW AT GIRISH NAGAR
OLD LIC OFFICE, 2ND CROSS,
JAMKHANDI-587301, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.S. NAGASHETTY, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2 & R3;
R4-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING A COMPROMISE
DECREE RECORDED BY THE LOK ADALAT IN THE PRESENCE OF
LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, ATHANI AND ONE OF THE
CONCILIATOR DATED 30.01.2010 (DECREE WAS SIGNED ON
24.04.2010) IN O.S.NO.1395/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 18.07.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
ORDER
These two petitions are filed by defendant No.2 and
defendants 4 to 6 assailing the compromise recorded by
the Lok Adalath in O.S.No.1395/2009.
2. Before this Court proceeds to advert to the facts
of the case, this Court deems it fit to cull out the family
tree, which is as under:
Laxman (died)
Gourawwa (Wife) (died)
Iragouda Malagouda Kalyani Sumitra Shobha Sharada
D.No.1
Kasturi (1st Wife) Def.no.2 Sumangala (2nd Wife) Def.no.3
Laxmi (Def.no.7)
(Daughter)
Rajeshwari Indhira Sarojini Raghavendra
(Def.no.4) (Def.no.5) (Def.no.6) (Plaintiff)
3. The dispute is between Irangouda, who is
arrayed as defendant No.1 and the first wife and children.
Raghavendra, who is the son of first wife and Irangowda,
filed a suit for partition and separate possession in
O.S.No.1395/2001. The second wife was arrayed as
defendant No.3 and the daughter born through second
marriage is arrayed as defendant No.7 and brother of
defendant No.1 is arrayed as defendant No.8.
4. Pending consideration of the suit, a joint
compromise petition was filed and the matter was referred
to Lok Adalath and compromise was recorded. The
daughters i.e., defendants 4 to 6 gave up their rights and
in terms of compromise, defendant No.2 and plaintiff were
jointly allotted a residential house bearing VPC No.112/B
and they have also received a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- from
defendant No.1. This compromise is recorded by the Lok
Adalath. While recording compromise, the Lok Adalath has
enquired with the parties and the counsel on record and
on satisfaction, the compromise petition is taken on record
and compromise is recorded. The compromise decree is
passed on 30.1.2010 while these two petitions are filed on
19.1.2021 and 22.9.2022.
5. The counsel appearing for the
petitioners(daughters) in W.P.No.107712/2023 reiterating
the grounds urged in the petition would point out that the
in the compromise recorded in 2010, no share is allotted
to them though they are the children born through first
wife and they are entitled for their legitimate share in the
suit schedule properties. The counsel has further
contended that the Lok Adalath has not followed the
procedure prescribed under Regulation 5 of the National
Legal Service Authority (Lok Adalath Regulation) 2009.
The daughters have also alleged that their interest was not
protected and when enquired with their mother(defendant
No.2) she informed that she is not aware of this
compromise decree.
6. The counsel appearing for defendant No.2
mother has argued in the same vein and similar
contentions are urged in W.P.100187/2021.
7. Heard the counsel for the petitioners in both the
petitions and the counsel appearing for respondents.
8. These two petitions are filed after inordinate
delay of ten years. On meticulous examination of records,
this Court is more than satisfied that these two petitions
are filed in collusion with each other.
W.P.No.100187/2005 was filed by defendants 2 and 4 to 6
challenging compromise recorded in O.S.No.1395/2009.
Respondent No.1 tendered appearance and filed statement
of objections. In the statement of objections, respondent
No.1 contended that defendant No.2 was aware of the
terms of compromise and she while representing the
children i.e. plaintiff and defendants 2 and 4 to 6 has
signed the compromise for herself and on behalf of the
children. Respondent No.1 has further contended that if
the terms of compromise were not acceptable to
defendant No.2, there was no impediment for defendant
No.2 to reject the proposal.
9. Defendants 2 and 4 to 6 on receipt of statement
of objections filed transposition application in
W.P.100187/2021. Defendants 4 to 6 also filed
independent writ petition in W.P.No.107712/2023. Para 5
and 6 of the writ petition would throw a lot of light in the
manner in which the present petitioners have tried to
overcome the compromise decree passed in
O.S.No.1395/2009. Para 5 and 6 would be relevant and
the same is extracted as under:
"5. The parties admit that, suit RCC house VPC
No.112/B of Gadyal Tq: Jamakhandi has fallen to the
share Plaintiff and Defendants No.2 Kasturi jointly and
they are in possession of the same as absolute owners.
6. The parties admit that, the defendant No.1 has
paid Rs. 1,75,000/- to the plaintiff and defendant No.2
and they are the owners of the same. "
10. Defendant No.2 along with her daughters
initially questioned the compromise decree in
W.P.No.100187/2021. The averments in the writ petition
are verified by defendant No.2 on behalf of her daughters.
The verifying affidavit would be relevant and the same is
extracted as under:
"VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
Herein I, Smt. Kasturi W/o Iragouda Kumathalli, Age: 64
Years, Occ: Household Work, R/o: Gadyal, Tq:
- 10 -
Jamakhandi, Dist: Bagalkot, today at Dharwad, do hereby
state on solemn affirmation are as under:-
1. That, I am the Petitioner No. 1 in the above Writ
petition, and Petitioners No. 2 to 4 are my daughters.
I know the facts of the case. Hence I am swearing
this affidavit for myself and on behalf of other
petitioner also.
2. The statement made in Paragraphs No. 1 to 27 of the
Writ Petition accompanying this affidavit are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and
information.
3. The documents marked as Annexure-A to D are the
certified copies and Annexure-E, is the original and
Annexure-F is the true copy of the original."
11. On meticulous reading of pleadings in the writ
petition filed by the daughters, the daughters have not
seriously questioned the conduct of defendant
No.2/mother, who has entered into compromise on behalf
of herself and the daughters, who are defendants 4 to 6.
Having got themselves transposed as respondents in
W.P.100187/2021, the daughters with an ulterior motive
have attributed allegations against defendant No.2 alleging
that they have lost faith in their mother. This is clearly an
after thought and the conduct of daughters, in getting
themselves transposed in the first writ petition and then
filing a independent writ petition clearly reflects oblique
- 11 -
motive. The action of daughters in filing an independent
writ petition is seriously tainted with malafides.
12. On examining the first writ petition, this Court
is more than satisfied that there is no dispute between
mother and daughters. The transposing application and
independent writ petition filed by daughters is clearly
intended to overcome the compromise decree. On
examining the records, defendant No.2 based on a
registered GPA executed by her daughters has agreed to
compromise the matter. The daughters/defendants 4 to 6
have voluntarily given up their shares in the properties in
2010. Defendant No.2 and plaintiff have received a sum
of Rs.1,75,000/- and one residential house. The parties
were represented by their respective counsel and were
identified by the respective counsels. The Lok adalath has
verified the veracity of settlement and on satisfaction, has
recorded compromise.
13. The contention of petitioners in both the
petitions that they were not properly identified by their
- 12 -
respective counsel and therefore, there is a foul play
cannot be acceded to. The contention of petitioners that
only 8 acres of agricultural land bearing Survey No.681
was the subject-matter, while compromise is recorded by
adding additional four acres is also misconceived.
Defendant No.8, who is the brother of defendant No.1,
was already allotted four acres in Survey No.681 and he
was arrayed as defendant No.8 as there was no partition
insofar as the residential houses are concerned.
Therefore, while allotting residential house to defendant
No.8, the parties to the suit have admitted that western
portion measuring 4 acres 17 guntas in Survey No.681 is
owned by defendant No.8. While recording compromise,
the joint family members are entitled to include all the
properties to give a quietus to the differences and disputes
once for all. The inclusion of 4 acres 17 guntas does not
render the compromise void. The parties have only
acknowledged that 4 acres 17 guntas in Survey No.681 is
owned by defendant No.8.
- 13 -
14. Time and again, this Court in catena of
judgments has held that voluntary settlement recorded by
the parties in a pending civil proceeding has to be placed
at a higher pedestal. The compromise recorded by the Lok
Adalath and Courts have a sanctity and honor.
The voluntary settlements in pending suits cannot be
casually interfered unless there is credible evidence to
substantiate that fraud is played on litigants and
non-indulgence by the Courts will lead to miscarriage of
justice.
15. Compromises recorded by Lok Adalats should
not be casually interfered with due to the principle of
finality and certainty they bring to legal disputes. Lok
Adalats are designed to provide swift and amicable
resolution to conflicts, helping to reduce the burden on the
formal judicial system. Once a compromise is reached and
recorded, it signifies the end of litigation for the involved
parties. Interfering with such agreements disrupts this
finality, leading to prolonged disputes and uncertainty,
which contradicts the very purpose of Lok Adalats.
- 14 -
16. Moreover, the nature of these compromises is
voluntary and mutually agreed upon by the disputing
parties. The involvement of both parties in reaching an
agreement suggests that the resolution is fair and
acceptable to both sides. This consensual aspect is crucial
as it reflects the true intentions and desires of the parties,
often leading to more satisfactory and sustainable
outcomes compared to court-imposed judgments. Casual
interference with these agreements undermines the
autonomy of the parties and the respect for their voluntary
settlement.
17. The presence of legal counsels who guide and
advise the parties further strengthens the validity of these
compromises. When a joint compromise petition is signed
by both parties and their respective counsels, it indicates
that the parties had access to legal advice and understood
the legal implications of their agreement. This professional
involvement acts as a safeguard against unfair terms and
- 15 -
ensures that the parties' rights and interests are
adequately protected.
18. Additionally, the practice of explaining the
compromise terms in the vernacular language of the
parties ensures full comprehension of the agreement. This
measure is vital in preventing misunderstandings or
misinterpretations of the compromise terms. When parties
fully understand the agreement, it reduces the likelihood
of future disputes over the terms and conditions,
promoting lasting resolution and peace.
19. The delay of 10 years since the compromise
was recorded adds another layer of complexity to the
matter. Over such a long period, circumstances
surrounding the dispute and the lives of the parties may
have significantly changed. Reopening the case after such
a long delay could lead to unfairness and additional
complications. It could also encourage parties to contest
settled matters long after they have been resolved,
leading to legal instability.
- 16 -
20. Lastly, judicial efficiency is a critical concern.
Lok Adalats play a significant role in alleviating the case
backlog in courts. If compromises recorded by them are
casually interfered with, it would undermine the
effectiveness of this alternative dispute resolution
mechanism. The courts would be burdened with an influx
of cases that were previously settled, defeating the
purpose of Lok Adalats and putting additional pressure on
an already overburdened judicial system.
21. Therefore, unless there are compelling reasons
such as fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation, recorded
compromises by Lok Adalats should be upheld to maintain
the integrity and efficiency of the dispute resolution
process.
22. The compromise decree cannot be tested after
lapse of 10 years. It is not only voluntary settlement
between the branch of defendant No.1 but the settlement
also extends to the brother of defendant No.1 who is
arrayed as defendant No.8. Pursuant to settlement, rights
- 17 -
of defendant No.8 and other parties have stood
crystallized. There is no convincing explanation
forthcoming in both the petitions for having kept quite for
close to 11 years.
23. On examining the material on record, this Court
has found that the conduct of defendants 4 to 6 is grossly
unfair and no credible evidence is placed to substantiate
how the compromise decree is tainted with fraud and
misrepresentation. These petitions are also liable to be
dismissed on the ground of inordinate of delay.
24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petitions are devoid of merits and
accordingly stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*alb/-.
