[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Gurumurthy vs G Theerthakumar on 16 December, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53587
WP No. 5501 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 5501 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
GURUMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O LATE RAMANNA
GORAGONDANAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI
TIPTUR TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SOHANI HOLLA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. G. THEERTHAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O GURUMURTHY
GORAGONDANAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI
TIPTUR TALUK
Digitally
signed by TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.
NANDINI M S
Location: 2. G. VANITHA
HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
OF
KARNATAKA D/O GURUMURTHY
SALUKATTE KANDIKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SATISH S.K, ADV., FOR
SMT. JYOTHI S KEMPEGOWDA, ADV., FOR R-1;
R-2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD 18.12.2021 (ANNX-B) PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TIPTUR IN OS 563/2021.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53587
WP No. 5501 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendant is before this Court in this writ petition filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to
set-aside the order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Lok Adalat
in OS No.563/2021 and the order dated 11.01.2023 passed on
an application filed under Section 151 of CPC in OS
No.563/2021 by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and
JMFC, Tiptur.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent No.1 herein had filed OS No.563/2021 before
the jurisdictional Civil Court at Tiptur seeking the relief of
partition and separate possession of the suit schedule
properties and also for mesne profits. Petitioner, who is the
father of plaintiff was arrayed as defendant No.1 and his
daughter was arrayed as defendant No.2 in the said suit. On
17.12.2021, a compromise petition was filed before the Trial
Court in OS No.563/2021 and the Court had adjourned the
NC: 2025:KHC:53587
HC-KAR
matter for orders on 18.12.2021. Thereafter, on 18.12.2021,
case was called before the National Lok Adalat and based on
the compromise petition, the suit was decreed in terms of the
compromise petition. Petitioner had thereafter filed an
application under Section 151 of CPC before the Trial Court in
OS No.563/2021 to recall the order dated 18.12.2021 passed in
OS No.563/2021 by the Lok Adalat and the said application was
rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 11.01.2023.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, defendant No.1, who is
the father of plaintiff and defendant No.2, is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition submits that major portion of the
suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of the
petitioner. He submits that petitioner was not a signatory to the
compromise petition which was filed in OS No.563/2021. The
compromise petition which was prepared between the parties
and the compromise petition which was filed in OS
No.563/2021 are totally different. Son-in-law of the petitioner
has signed the compromise petition on behalf of the petitioner,
which has been acted upon by the Lok Adalat and suit has been
NC: 2025:KHC:53587
HC-KAR
decreed in terms of the said compromise petition. She submits
that since the compromise petition was filed before the Court in
OS No.563/2021, in view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Renuka vs. Sri.
Ramanand and Another in WP No.103766/2018 disposed off on
31.03.2022, the matter could not have been referred to Lok
Adalat for disposal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff
has argued in support of the impugned orders. He submits that
petitioner was very much aware of the contents of the
compromise petition and he has signed the order sheet before
the Lok Adalat on 18.12.2021 admitting the contents of the
compromise petition. In terms of the compromise petition, for a
considerable period of time, a sum of Rs.12,000/- was being
deposited to the bank account of the petitioner by respondent
No.1 herein. He submits that petitioner ought to have filed an
application before the Trial Court to recall the compromise
decree and he cannot approach this Court by filing a writ
petition. He submits that in the absence of conclusive proof as
NC: 2025:KHC:53587
HC-KAR
to the fraud allegedly played by respondents herein, the orders
impugned cannot be set-aside in writ proceedings.
6. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.
Srinivasappa and Others vs. M. Mallamma and Others -
AIR 2022 SC 2381 and the judgment of this Court in the case
of Smt. Sushma and Others vs. Smt. Sunita in WP
No.104723/2024 disposed off on 23.08.2024.
7. Perusal of the averments made in the plaint in OS
No.563/2021 would go to show that there was an earlier
partition between the parties to the suit under a registered
Partition Deed dated 16.03.2015. According to learned counsel
for the petitioner, under the said Partition Deed, the ancestral
properties of the parties to the suit was divided and allotted to
the share of plaintiff and his sister/defendant No.2. The first
defendant was given cash amount of Rs.40,000/- each by the
plaintiff and defendant No.2 and he had relinquished his rights
in the ancestral properties in favour of his children. She has
submitted that major portion of the properties in the present
suit are all self-acquired properties of the petitioner. In the suit,
NC: 2025:KHC:53587
HC-KAR
prayer made by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is for allotment of
1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. In the compromise
petition based on which, the suit was disposed off by Lok
Adalth, major portion of the immovable properties have been
allotted to the share of the plaintiff and the remaining items of
the suit schedule properties were allotted to defendant No.2.
No property has been allotted whatsoever to the share of the
petitioner herein.
8. In paragraph No.4 of the compromise petition, it is stated
that plaintiff has to remit Rs.12,000/- per month to the bank
account of the petitioner herein. In paragraph No.5, it is stated
that the petitioner is required to maintain himself and his wife
from the aforesaid amount of Rs.12,000/- per month which is
to be deposited by the plaintiff. Except the aforesaid amount of
Rs.12,000/- per month, nothing has been allotted to the
petitioner.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not a signatory to
the compromise petition dated 17.12.2021 which was filed in
Court in OS No.563/2021. It appears that husband of
defendant No.2 had signed the said compromise petition on
NC: 2025:KHC:53587
HC-KAR
behalf of the petitioner. The order sheet of the Trial Court
would go to show that on 17.12.2021, after the compromise
petition dated 17.12.2021 was filed in the Open Court, the
same was taken on record and the matter was adjourned for
orders by 18.12.2021. The matter was not referred to Lok
Adalat by the Court. However, on 18.12.2021, the case was
taken up before the Lok Adalat and based on the compromise
petition which was filed in the Court on 17.12.2021, Lok Adalat
had disposed off the suit in terms of the compromise petition.
10. This Court in the case of Smt. Renuka (supra) having
placed reliance on the earlier judgment of this Court in the case
of Smt. Akkubai vs. Shri Venkatrao and Others - ILR 2014 KAR
2051 has held that when a compromise is filed before the
Court, it is for the Court to record the compromise and not to
refer the matter to Lok Adalat. It is only if there is no
settlement arrived at before the Court and the parties request
for the matter to be referred to Lok Adalat to enable
settlement, then in such event, the parties are to be referred to
Lok Adalat and in the event a compromise being arrived before
Lok Adalat, the same could be recorded by Lok Adalat.
NC: 2025:KHC:53587
HC-KAR
11. In the present case, compromise petition was
undisputedly filed in the Open Court in OS No.563/2021 on
17.12.2021. The Trial Court after receiving the said
compromise petition had adjourned the matter to 18.12.2021
for orders. The matter was not referred to Lok Adalat by the
Court and as per the order passed on 17.12.2021, no request
was made by the parties to refer the matter to Lok Adalat. In
spite of the same, the matter was taken up before the Lok
Adalat on 18.12.2021 and without even noticing the fact that
the petitioner was not even a signatory to the compromise
petition, the Lok Adalat had disposed off the suit in terms of
compromise petition.
12. In the application filed under Section 151 of CPC before
the Trial Court with a prayer to recall the order dated
18.12.2021 passed in OS No.563/2021, petitioner has clearly
stated that the compromise petition which was shown to him
was not the compromise petition which was filed in the Open
Court. If that is so, even if the petitioner has signed the order
sheet before the Lok Adalat, it is of no consequence, when
NC: 2025:KHC:53587
HC-KAR
undisputedly, he has not signed the compromise petition based
on which the suit was disposed off by the Lok Adalat.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivasappa
(supra) has observed that the terms of compromise decree,
cannot be avoided, unless the allegation of fraud was proved.
In the said case, all the parties had signed the compromise
petition and subsequently, it was alleged that there was a fraud
played based on which the compromise petition was filed. The
same is not the fact situation in the present case.
14. In the present case, undisputedly petitioner has not
signed the compromise petition and without even his signature,
Lok Adalat had acted upon the compromise petition and
disposed off the suit on the basis of the compromise petition
which is signed by the husband of defendant No.2 on behalf of
the petitioner. Therefore, prima facie it appears that fraud has
been played by other parties to the suit who are the
beneficiaries of the compromise petition which is acted upon by
the Lok Adalat. The judgment in the case of Smt. Sushma
(supra) has been passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53587
HC-KAR
the case of Sri. K. Srinivasappa (supra). Even in the said case,
all the parties to the dispute had signed the compromise
petition which was acted upon by the Lok Adalat for disposing
off the suit in terms of the compromise petition. Under the
circumstances, the judgment in the case of K. Srinivasappa and
Smt. Sushma (supra) on which reliance has been placed by
defendant No.1 in support of his arguments, cannot be made
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It
is trite that judgments can be relied upon as precedents only if
the same is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
case in hand.
15. Insofar as the present case is concerned, compromise
petition which is acted upon by Lok Adalat is not even signed
by the petitioner herein. In addition to the same, the Trial
Court after having received the compromise petition on
17.12.2021 had not even referred the matter to Lok Adalat and
inspite of the same, the matter was taken up before Lok Adalat
on 18.12.2021 and based on the compromise petition which is
not even signed by the petitioner, the suit is disposed off in
terms of the compromise petition. Further, in view of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53587
HC-KAR
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Smt. Renuka (supra) since compromise petition was filed
before the Court in OS No.563/2021, it was for the Court to
dispose off the suit in terms of the compromise petition and the
matter could not have been taken up before the Lok Adalat at
all. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the
impugned order passed by Lok Adalath in OS No.563/2021
cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:-
16. The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order
dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Lok Adalat in OS No.563/2021
is set-aside. Consequently, the prayer made in the application
filed under Section 151 of CPC in OS No.536/2021 becomes
superfluous and prayer made to set-aside the order dated
11.01.2023 passed on the application filed under Section 151 of
CPC in OS No.563/2021 by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge
and JMFC, Tiptur, is rendered infructuous.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
DN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44
