Karnataka High Court
Shivavva W/O Maruti Bangar vs Shivaling Bannappa Omannavar Alias ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15866
WP No. 104277 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 104277 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHIVAVVA @ SHANTAVVA BANADAVAR
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S
1.a) MARUTI S/O. NAGAPPA BANADAVAR
AGE: 86 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
2.b) LALITA W/O. BHIMAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD
3.c) SULOCHANA W/O. MARUTI BANADAVAR
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC; HOUSEHOLD
4.d) SUREKHA W/O. IRAPPA HITNI
AGE:47 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S 5.e) BASAVARAJ S/O. MARUTI BANADAVAR
HARIHAR
Location: High
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad ALL ARE RESIDENT OF #600 HUDALI VILLAGE,
TALUKA: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-590 016.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVALING BANNAPPA OMANNAVAR
ALIAS HANJIBUTTI,
AGE. 72 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15866
WP No. 104277 of 2024
HC-KAR
R/O. DADBANAHATTI,
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591243.
2. AKKAWWA BANNAPPA OMANNAVAR
ALIAS HANJIBUTTI,
AGE. 105 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DADBANAHATTI,
TQ. HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591243
3. SHANKAR BASAVANNI OMANNAVAR
ALIAS HANJIBUTTI,
AGE. 54 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LONDA, TAL. KOLHAPUR,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591243
4. IRANNA BASAVANNI OMANNAVAR
ALIAS HANJIBUTTI,
AGE. 52 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DADBANAHATTI,
TQ. HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591243.
5. MALLIKARJUN BASAVANNI OMANNAVAR
ALIAS HANJIBUTTI,
AGE. 49 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DADBANAHATTI,
TQ. HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591243.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. CHETANA S. BIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R1 TO R3 AND R5 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE COMPROMISE DECREE DTD. 21-08-
2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND HUKKERI
AT HUKKERI IN OS NO. 291 OF 2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND
RESTORE THE SUIT BY ISSUE ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR
DIRECTIONS.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15866
WP No. 104277 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following prayer:
"a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the
Compromise decree dtd. 21-08-2023 passed by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and Hukkeri at Hukkeri
in OS No.291 of 2022 as per ANNEXURE-G and
restore the suit by issue any other suitable writ or
directions.
b. Issue such other suitable orders or directions as
this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the
nature and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice and equity."
2. The suit is instituted in O.S. No.291 of 2022 seeking
partition and separate possession. It transpires that the
petitioner executes a general power of attorney to conduct the
case before the concerned Court on 19.08.2022. One week
thereafter, the matter ends up in a compromise.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that
the general power of attorney did not indicate entering into a
compromise and taking away the rights of the petitioner, it was
only to conduct the case. One week within execution of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15866
HC-KAR
general power of attorney, the matter is compromised and the
proceeds are now distributed to all. Learned counsel submits that
the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.103766 of
2018, disposed on 31.03.2022, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench
held as follows:
1. "The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following relief:
TO QUASH THE COMPROMISE DECREE
DATED 26.07.2014 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
HUBBALLI (LOK ADALAT) IN
O.S.NO.246/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-"A"
AND THE COMPROMISE PETITION
DATED:26.07.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-
"E" AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE
O.S.NO. 246/2014 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
HUBBALLI FOR FRESH
CONSIDERATION ON MERITS.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that a
compromise petition was entered into in O.S.
No.246/2014 pending on the file of the Principal
Senior Civil Judge at Hubballi in the Lok-Adalat
proceedings by a person claiming to be the power
of attorney holder of the petitioner and as such the
petitioner's interest in the suit schedule property
therein has been compromised without the
knowledge of the petitioner and therefore a fraud
has been committed on the petitioner by resorting
to an abuse of the process of the Court and filing of
a compromise petition in the Lok-Adalat.
3. Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the suit in O.S.
No.246/2014 had been filed by respondent No.2
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15866
HC-KAR
herein against the petitioner represented by the
power of attorney holder seeking for specific
performance of an alleged agreement of sale dated
25.04.2014 which is alleged to have been executed
by the alleged power of attorney holder of the
petitioner.
4. In the said suit upon notice being ordered without
service of notice on the petitioner, respondent No.1
who claims to be the power of attorney holder of
the petitioner had entered appearance and filed a
compromise petition even before return of notice.
The compromise petition having been filed before
the Court, the matter was referred to the Lok-
Adalat and in that Lok-Adalat a compromise was
recorded by the conciliators and compromise
decree was directed to be passed.
5. Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar submits that once earlier a
power of attorney which had been issued in favour
of the father of respondent No.1 as regards the said
properties had been cancelled by a public notice
dated 15.12.2012 published in the newspaper
Sanjevani on 16th December, 2012.
6. The petitioner not having executed any power of
attorney in favour of respondent No.1, the power of
attorney claimed by respondent No.1 is fabricated
one and as such neither the agreement of sale
could be executed by respondent No.1 in favour of
respondent No.2 nor could a compromise be
entered into by the respondent No.1 with
respondent No.2 for the Lok-Adalat to record. In
the above background, he submits that the petition
needs to be allowed and the compromise recorded
by the Lok-Adalat be set aside as also the
compromise decree drawn up in pursuance thereto.
7. Per contra, Sri.Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the respondents would
submit that respondent No.1 is the power of
attorney holder of the petitioner and respondent
No.1 has entered into a compromise with the
knowledge and consent of the petitioner with
respondent No.2. The compromise having been
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15866
HC-KAR
filed before the Court and the Court having
forwarded the matter to the Lok-Adalat the
compromise is one which is filed before the Court
and as such the present petition is not maintainable
since the trial Court having taken the compromise
on record, only a suit challenging the compromise
is maintainable.
8. He further submits that the alleged fabricated
power of attorney has not been produced by the
petitioner. Therefore the contention of the
petitioner that there is fabrication of the power of
attorney is not sustainable without production of
such power of attorney. There is gross delay by the
petitioner in challenging the compromise by filing of
the above petition inasmuch as the compromise
was entered into in the year 2014 and the present
writ petition has been filed in the year 2018 and as
such the petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Further he submits that respondent No.2 has acted
on the compromise and entered into further
transaction which would get upset if this Court were
to intervene in the matter and set aside the
compromise.
10. Heard Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.Padmanabha Mahale, learned
Senior counsel for Sri.Pruthvi K.S., learned counsel
for the respondents. Perused papers.
11. The suit in O.S. No.246/2014 had been filed for
specific performance of an agreement of sale dated
25.04.2014 said to have been executed by power of
attorney holder of the petitioner herein namely,
respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2. The
cause title of the said suit leads to an interesting
reading inasmuch as the defendant though is
named as Smt.Renuka (petitioner herein) her
address is shown as resident of Keshwapur and is
represented by her GPA holder respondent No.1
with the address of respondent No.1 shown in the
cause title. In the cause title, the address of the
petitioner has not been shown except for her being
named.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15866
HC-KAR
12. Notice having been ordered on the defendant the
power of attorney holder enters appearance for the
defendant therein and enters into a compromise. It
fails to reason as to how a party to a proceeding
namely a defendant can be said to be represented
by power of attorney when a person is arrayed as a
party defendant, it is for the said person who is
arrayed as a defendant to appoint a power of
attorney or not. The plaintiff in a suit cannot in my
considered opinion array a defendant to be
represented by power of attorney showing the
address of the said power of attorney without even
showing the address of the defendant.
13. The facts of this case are even more peculiar
inasmuch as the suit was filed for specific
performance of an agreement dated 25.04.2014
which is stated to be executed by the very same
power of attorney shown in the cause title. Thus,
admittedly the defendant therein has not executed
any agreement but the agreement was executed by
a person claiming to be power of attorney of the
defendant.
14. The proceedings take curious turn by the power of
attorney appearing in the proceedings and filing a
compromise petition immediately after issuance of
notice and the said compromise is referred to a
Lok-Adalat.
15. It is further surprising that the very same counsel
appears in these proceedings for both the
respondents i.e. the plaintiff in O.S. No.246/2014
as also the power of attorney representing the
defendant in O.S. No.246/2014. This in no
uncertain terms in my considered opinion
establishes the collusion between power of attorney
and plaintiff in O.S. No.246/2014.
16. The net result of the entire proceedings and
procedure followed is that the plaintiff who was not
aware of the said proceedings, a compromise
decree has been passed against the petitioner who
though arrayed as a party to the preceding was
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15866
HC-KAR
never served with the notice nor did the defendant
contest the said the proceedings.
17. Apart there from there is a procedural irregularity
in inasmuch as the compromise petition was filed
before the Court and thereafter the matter referred
to Lok-Adalat for recordal of the compromise. This
Court in Smt.Akkubai vs. Shri Venkatrao and
Others [ILR 2014 KAR 2051] has severely
deprecated the said practice. Para 11 of the said
judgment is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
"11. I really wonder, whether the learned Judge
who has entertained this matter was aware of the
elementary aspects of judicial functioning and the
Lok Adalath. A common order-sheet cannot be
maintained by the Court as well as the Lok Adalath.
A Court cannot be converted into a Lok Adalath. In
the order-sheet maintained by the Court, a portion
of the proceedings is referable to the Court
proceedings and another portion refers to the
proceedings of the Lok Adalath. The Conciliator has
no place inside the Court. The very object of
accepting this Lok Adalath as an alternative mode
of resolution of dispute is that, all matters do not
need adjudication. The matter which could be
resolved by persuasion, negotiation and
understanding should be taken out of adjudication
process and should be resolved by means of Lok
Adalath satisfactorily, so that the cases are
disposed of expeditiously and the Courts will be
saving the time of adjudicatory process, and they
can utilize that time which is saved, in adjudicating
the cases. If on the day the plaint is presented, the
parties are also present before the Court, they are
ready with the compromise petition and when they
are filing an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC,
when they are admitting the terms of the
compromise and execution of the terms and
condition, then the Court before which it is
presented, is the competent Court to record the
compromise and dispose of the suit in terms of the
compromise. The question of referring the said
dispute to the Lok Adalath would not arise. If it is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15866
HC-KAR
referred, it is a farce. If this is accepted and
encouraged, both the judicial system and this
alternative dispute resolution mechanism gets a
bad name and would be subjected to redicule in the
eyes of public. All persons who are indulging in this
process would be doing great injustice and dis-
service to the judicial system. They are not
conscious of their action and its repercussions and
the image of the Judiciary, which would create in
the mind of the public. That is not the object with
which neither Legal Services Authority Act of 1987
is passed by the Parliament providing for the
institution of Lok Adalath nor Section 89 was
introduced by the Parliament amending CPC. The
essence of these provisions is neither understood
by the learned Judge nor by the learned Counsels
who are appearing for the parties."
18. This Court has held that such a practice of
recording compromise before the Court and
thereafter referring to Lok-Adalat is not
contemplated in the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987 and such compromise if recorded before the
Lok-Adalat is required to be set aside.
19. Applying the Ruling to the present case as also for
the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered
opinion that the petition is required to be allowed.
20. This Court has also been coming across
several matters relating to such compromise
before the Lok-Adalat which are challenged by
way of writ petitions. Hence, I also deem it fit
to issue general directions in respect of such
matters which are referred to Lok-Adalat and
compromise recorded as under:
(i) When a compromise is filed before the
Court in terms of the decision in
Smt.Akkubai vs. Shri Venkatrao and
Others [ILR 2014 KAR 2051] (supra) it is
for the Court to record the compromise
and not refer the matter to the Lok-
Adalat.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15866
HC-KAR
(ii) 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 a settlement then
in such event the parties are to be
referred to the Lok-Adalat and in the
event of a compromise being arrived at
before the Lok-Adalat, the same could be
recorded by the lok-Adalat.
(iii) When the matter is referred to Lok-
Adalat, separate order sheets would
have to be opened and maintained by
the said Lok-Adalat and the order sheet
of the Court in the suit cannot be used
by the Lok-Adalat.
(iv) The trial Court and or the Lok-Adalat
while recording compromise is required
to ascertain if the parties are present
personally as also to ascertain and verify
their identities by production of suitable
documentary proof.
(v) In the event of a power of attorney
appearing, it would be the bounden duty
of the Court or the Lok-Adalat to
ascertain if the concerned party has
been served with notice.
(vi) The Court as also the Lok-Adalat would
always have to be suspicious if the party
were to enter appearance even before
service of notice which is a red flag that
there is something that is fishy in the
matter.
(vii) When recording a compromise being
entered into by a power of attorney, the
original of the power of attorney is
required to be examined by the Court
and the Lok-Adalat and necessary
endorsement made in the order to that
effect and the original power of attorney
returned to the parties.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15866
HC-KAR
(viii) As far as possible the trial Court and or
the Lok-Adalat to secure the presence of
the party and obtain signature of such
party rather than the power of attorney.
(ix) The Trial Courts shall ensure that proper
and acceptable proof of identity of the
parties to proceedings as mandated by
the Government for various purposes
(such as Aadhar Card, Driving Licence,
Passport Copy, Election Identity card,
etc.,) are obtained as a matter of rule.
21. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. A certiorari is issued. The compromise decree
dated 26.07.2014 in O.S. No.246/2014 as
recorded by the Lok-Adalat is quashed. O.S.
No.246/2014 is restored to the file.
iii. The petitioner is at liberty to contest the said
suit before the trial Court.
iv. All issues are left open including the aspect
of whether power of attorney being genuine
or otherwise."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. The Co-ordinate Bench by issuance of guidelines as
to how a compromise should be recorded before the Lok Adalath.
The direction so issued would cover the issue that is projected in
the case at hand as well.
5. Learned counsel Smt. Chetana S.Biraj submits that
the defendants had agreed to compromise and had paid
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15866
HC-KAR
₹30,00,000/- only for the right of passage and therefore the said
amount is required to be returned back to those defendants.
6. In the light of the issue standing answered and the
contention of the petitioner that the general power of attorney
was never intended to be used to enter into a compromise
petition, I deem it appropriate to allow the petition by recalling
the order, which closes the suit on the said compromise petition
and restore the partition suit on the file of the concerned Court.
For the aforesaid reason the following
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. A certiorari is issued. The compromise decree
dated 21.08.2023 in O.S. No.291/2022 as
recorded by the Lok-Adalat is quashed. O.S.
No.291/2022 is restored to file.
iii. The petitioner is at liberty to contest the said
suit before the trial Court.
iv. The proceeds of compromise by all the parties
shall be deposited before the concerned Court.
v. It is open to the respondents to file an
application before the concerned Court seeking
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15866
HC-KAR
release of the amount once it is deposited. The
concerned Court shall answer the said
application in accordance with law.
vi. All issues are left open including the aspect of
whether power of attorney being genuine or
otherwise.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP
CT: ANB
