Karnataka High Court
Maruthi S/O Tammanna Pai vs Gurudas S/O Tammanna Pai on 27 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7011
WP No. 102122 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.102122 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MARUTHI S/O. TAMMANNA PAI,
AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: NILO
R/O. MADANAGERI,
TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GURUDAS S/O. TAMMANNA PAI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O CHINNADAKERI,
GOKARNNA, TQ: KUMTA,
DIST: UTTARKANNADA,
NOW R/O. NO.1604, ROMELL GRANDUAR,
NEAR UDUPI VIHAR HOTEL,
GOREGAON EAST, MUMBAI,
STATE OF MAHARASTRA-400063.
GAJANAN S/O. TAMMANNA PAI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
2. VEENA W/O. GAJANAN PAI,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH R/O MADANGERI, TQ: KUMTA,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581344.
3. POOJA D/O. GAJANAN PAI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O MADANGERI, TQ: KUMTA,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581344.
4. TEJA D/O. GAJANAN PAI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: CHEMICAL ENGINEER,
R/O MADANGERI, TQ: KUMTA,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581344.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7011
WP No. 102122 of 2024
5. VARSHA D/O. GAJANAN PAI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: CHEMICAL ENGINEER,
R/O MADANGERI, TQ: KUMTA,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581344.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, OR
ORDER, OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH
COMPROMISE PETITION DATED 18-12-2010 FILED BEFORE THE LD.
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) KUMTA IN O.S NO.165/2010, ORDER DATED
3-1-2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN) KUMTA IN O.S
NO.165/2010, FINAL DECREE DATED 3-1-2011 PASSED BY THE LD.
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) KUMTA (LOKADALAT), IN O.S NO.165/2010
WHICH ARE PRODUCED HERE WITH AS ANNEXURE- A,A1,A2.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the
compromise decree recorded by Lok-Adalath in
O.S.No.165/2010 and consequential final decree dated
03.01.2011 based on compromise decree recorded in said
suit.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and
perused the materials placed along with writ petition.
3. Having examined the grounds urged in the
petition, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence
to petitioner, who has chosen to question the compromise
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7011
decree passed by Lok-Adalath after lapse of 12 years.
Petitioner has gone to the extent of disputing the fact of
engaging a lawyer in O.S.No.165/2010.
4. On examining the joint compromise petition
filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure,
this Court has noticed that petitioner as well as counsel
have signed the compromise petition. The conciliator, on
complete satisfaction and after identifying the clients
through their counsels, has recorded the compromise in
terms of joint compromise petition filed by the parties.
5. On examining the legal notice issued to the
petitioner, who was the sole defendant in the suit, this
Court has noticed that no serious allegations are attributed
against the counsel who had appeared on behalf of
petitioner. It is trite law that compromise arrived at by the
parties voluntarily is placed at higher pedestal, when there
is a voluntarily settlement at the intervention of the
conciliators and if such a compromise is recorded,
petitioner who is a party to the compromise petition
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7011
should not be permitted to assail the compromise
recorded. In terms of compromise, petitioner has admitted
that schedule 'B' property, which is a residential house
bearing No.208, is self acquired property of plaintiff No.1.
At the same time, petitioner/defendant is allotted 1/3rd
share in the ancestral property, which is being the factual
matrix.
6. This Court is more than satisfied that a feeble
attempt is made by petitioner by challenging the
compromise decree and final decree after lapse of 12
years. There are absolutely no materials to substantiate
that decree was secured fraudulently. As held by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water
Supply and Sewerage Board and others Vs T.T.
Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 that when
there is an inordinate delay, the same cannot be lightly
brushed aside. When the parties have voluntarily given a
quietus to a lis relating to the immovable property, more
particularly, when a dispute is amicably resolved between
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7011
the siblings and a compromise is recorded before the Lok-
Adalath, the same cannot be lightly brushed aside. Hon'ble
Apex Court in the above cited judgment has held that the
Court should bear in mind that it is exercising an
extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction and therefore,
doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed
aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Writ petition being devoid of merits stands is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM
