Karnataka High Court
C. H. Ramachandraiah vs Smt. Rangamma W/O Rangamuthaiah on 8 November, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45225
MSA No. 112 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.112 OF 2023 (RO)
BETWEEN:
C. H. RAMACHANDRAIAH,
S/O. LATE PATE HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT CHANNAVEERANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 561 203.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. RANGAMMA W/O. RANGAMUTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT CHANNAVEERANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
Digitally signed BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
by RAMYA D
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. NATARAJA B S., ADVOCATE)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 43 RULE (1)(4) R/W
SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
07.08.2023 PASSED IN RA No.14/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 15.06.2023 PASSED IN OS No.5/2023 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA,
DISMISSING THE SUIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45225
MSA No. 112 of 2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This miscellaneous second appeal is filed by the
defendant/appellant challenging the order passed in
R.A.No.14/2023 dated 07.8.2023 by the Additional Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, which reversed the order
passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.5/2023 dated 15.6.2023 on
preliminary issue, dismissing the suit as not maintainable.
2. Rank of the parties as stated before the Trial Court
for easy reference and convenience.
3. The plaintiff/respondent has filed the suit for
declaration of title and consequential relief in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant. It is the contention of the
plaintiff that she is the owner of suit schedule property, which
was granted in favour of her husband. Per contra, the case of
the defendant is that the suit schedule property was allotted to
his share through an award by Lok-Adalath, in view of
compromise held between husband of the plaintiff along with
others. Therefore, it is the defense raised by the defendant
that suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff while filing the suit
NC: 2024:KHC:45225
for declaration, has challenged the award passed in Lok-Adalath
in a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise
decree was obtained by playing fraud.
4. The trial Court has framed a issue on the pleadings
as to whether the suit is not maintainable as narrated in the
written statement and answered the said issue i.e., issue No.3
in the affirmative and held that the suit is not maintainable and
accordingly, dismissed the suit. The reason assigned by the
trial Court to dismiss the suit is that the compromise decree
passed in Lok-Adalath cannot be challenged in the suit and the
remedy lies elsewhere other than Civil Court. Hence, on these
reasons dismissed the suit as not maintainable. The plaintiff
has challenged the order passed by the trial Court before the
First Appellate Court.
5. The First Appellate Court has reversed the order
passed by the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial
Court for disposal afresh by giving an opportunity to both the
parties to adduce evidence and to proceed with the matter.
The First Appellate Court assigned the reason that the trial
Court has not framed issue regarding ownership of the suit
NC: 2024:KHC:45225
property and also not given findings in respect of all the issues
framed by them. Therefore, exercising its power under Order
41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, remanded the matter to
the trial Court. Against this order, the defendant has preferred
the present miscellaneous second appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant
submitted that the husband of the plaintiff has filed suit for
partition and separate possession and it was ended in
compromise decree in Lok-Adalath. Subsequently, the husband
of the plaintiff has filed another suit for declaration that was
also dismissed. Now, the plaintiff being the wife of one
Rangamuthaiah-plaintiff in earlier suits has filed suit for
declaration to declare that she is the owner of the suit
property. Therefore, it is submitted that the suit filed by the
plaintiff is not maintainable and it is correctly held by the trial
Court. Hence, he prays to confirm the order of the trial Court
by setting aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court.
7. The trial Court has committed an error in dismissing
the suit as not maintainable for the reason that the compromise
decree in Lok-Adalath cannot be challenged in the Civil Court,
NC: 2024:KHC:45225
where allegation of fraud is made in compromise decree in
Lok-Adalath, suit is very well maintainable as held by this Court
in the case of ABHISHEK S/O. VENKAREDDY MELAGIRI
AND ANOTHER vs. CHOURADDY S/O. BHEEMRADDY
MELAGIRI AND OTHERS in RFA.No.100154/2015 dated
25.04.2024, because the element of fraud alleged in the plaint
cannot be decided in writ proceedings but the same could be
adjudicated only in a full-fledged trial. As there are various
disputed facts involved, the trial Court committed an error in
dismissing the suit on the reason that the suit challenged in the
compromise decree is not maintainable. Though the suit is filed
for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the
property but unless the compromise decree in Lok-Adalath is
set aside when the allegation is made that compromise decree
was obtained by playing fraud, in this regard, the trial Court
has committed an error and that is rightly considered by the
First Appellate Court and set aside the order of the trial Court
and remanded the matter. The First Appellate Court has
assigned other reasons by exercising its power under Order 41
Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure but remand made to the trial
Court for adjudication on merits is found to be proper and
NC: 2024:KHC:45225
justified. Therefore, the miscellaneous second appeal filed by
the defendant is hereby liable to be dismissed. Hence,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) This miscellaneous second appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
SMJ
