Karnataka High Court
Savitri W/O Basappa Madarkhandi vs Sangappa Basappa Madarkhandi on 31 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7277
WP No. 101731 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 101731 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SAVITRI W/O. BASAPPA MADARKHANDI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BIDARI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI-587301.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SANGAPPA BASAPPA MADARKHANDI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BIDARI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI-587301.
2. NEELAWWA W/O. MAHALINGAPPA ZALAKI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BIDARI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI-587301.
3. THE S.L.A.O.
JAMAKHANDI-587301.
YASHAVANT ...RESPONDENTS
NARAYANKAR
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADV. FOR R1;
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
SRI. M.C. HUKKERI, ADV. FOR R2;
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.01.2004
IN O.S. NO.94/1999 PASSED BY THE LOK ADALAT JAMAKHANDI
VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND SET ASIDE THE COMPROMISE PETITION
DATED 19.01.2004 IN O.S. NO.94/1999 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7277
WP No. 101731 of 2015
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by defendant No.2
questioning the compromise recorded by the Lok Adalat in
O.S.No.94/1999. Before I advert to the case on hand, to
narrate the facts more effectively, this court deems it fit to
cull out the family tree, which is as under.
Channabasappa (died)
Malakappa @ Mahalingappa Chinnappa
Smt.Neelavva wife (R2) Basappa
Smt.Kasturi Savitri wife (petr.)
Sangappa Mallappa
2. On examining the pleadings and the judgment
rendered by the court in O.S.No.24/1992, it is clearly
evident that the suit schedule properties were owned by
one Malakappa who is the father of the present petitioner
and respondent No.2-Neelawwa. Respondent No.2-
Neelawwa who is the sister of the petitioner along with her
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7277
daughter filed a suit contending that she along with
petitioner-Savitri are the only surviving class-I heirs and
therefore, both sisters are entitled for half share in the suit
schedule properties.
3. The present petitioner who was arrayed as
defendant No.2 contested the suit by contending that
respondent No.2-Neelawwa has relinquished her share in
the properties by receiving cash of Rs.15,000/- and a sum
of Rs.10,000/- towards marriage expenses of her daughter
Kasthuri. The trial court negatived the petitioner's defence
in O.S.No.24/1992 and proceeded to decree the suit by
holding that both sisters are entitled for half share. The
said judgment rendered in O.S.No.24/1992 is confirmed
by the appellate court and the second appeal filed by
Savitri is pending consideration before this court.
4. This being the factual matrix, the petitioner's
son namely, Sangappa who was arrayed as defendant
No.2 in the earlier partition suit in O.S.No.24/1992 has
filed a suit in O.S.No.94/1999 against the present
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7277
petitioner Savitri and his aunt Neelawwa and SLAO,
Jamkhandi. Though respondent No.2 has filed written
statement and has brought to the notice of the court that
there is already a decree passed in a partition suit, the
matter is referred to Lok Adalat and by placing the present
petitioner ex-parte, the compromise is recorded. In terms
of the compromise, respondent No.1-Sangappa who is the
son of the petitioner was allotted 5 acres 9 guntas.
5. The petitioner claims that she was never served
with the summons and has challenged the compromise
recorded by Lok Adalt in O.S.No.94/1999.
6. The pleadings and the findings recorded by the
trial court in a partition suit bearing O.S.No.24/1992 will
not detain this court for long. The facts and findings
recorded in a partition suit clearly clinches the entire
controversy between the parties. On examining the
findings recorded in O.S.No.24/1992, it is clearly evident
that present petitioner and respondent No.2-Neelawwa
who is her full sister succeed to the estate of Malakappa,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7277
as they being class-I heirs of Malkappa, who is none other
than their father. It is equally trite law that in a maternal
property, the children of Hindu female have no
independent right during the lifetime of Hindu female. If
the property is the maternal property of the petitioner,
respondent No.1-Sangapa being son of the petitioner has
no pre-existing right and therefore the suit filed by
respondent No.1 in O.S.No.94/1999 itself was not
maintainable.
7. It is pertinent to express at this juncture that
the civil court recording a compromise must do so
mindfully and after application of due care. Recording of a
compromise must be done by the competent court after it
has conducted a basic enquiry and is satisfied that the
parties participating in the compromise have a prior vested
right/pre-existing right. The court must fulfill this bare
minimum enquiry and must be satisfied that the parties
involved have pre-existing rights before recording the
compromise.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7277
8. Even if the petitioner has failed to contest the
said suit, the compromise recorded by the Lok Adalat
without asserting the right of respondent No.1-Sangappa
is not a lawful compromise and the said compromise does
not create any right in favour of respondent No.1-
Sangappa. During the lifetime of petitioner-Savitri,
Sangappa being the son of the petitioner, has no
semblance of right and therefore, the compromise
recorded by Lok Adalat in O.S.No.94/1999 does not create
any right. Therefore, the compromise recorded by the Lok
Adalat in O.S.No.94/1999 suffers from serious infirmities
and the same is liable to be quashed.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this court pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The compromise decree recorded in
O.S.No.94/1999 is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS
Ct-mck
