Karnataka High Court
M/S Hosachiguru Farms Llp vs Smt. Padmavathamma on 3 November, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44163
WP No. 26373 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 26373 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S HOSACHIGURU FARMS LLP
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE
SRI SRIRAM CHITLUR
BASLASUBRAMANYAM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 304
3RD FLOOR, SHRAVANEE PREMIER
BUILDING, ASHOKA PILLER ROAD
JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK
BENGALURU - 560 011.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ABHINAV R, ADV., FOR
SRI SWAROOP S, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SMT. PADMAVATHAMMA
by NANDINI M D/O LATE SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA
S AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SHANTHAMMA
KARNATAKA D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
W/O ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
(1) AND (2) R/AT PENAKONDA
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 110.
3. SMT. VINODAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
W/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44163
WP No. 26373 of 2023
HC-KAR
GUDIBANE TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.
4. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE VENKTARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE
GUDIBANE TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.
5. SRI VENKATESH
W/O LATE VENKTARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE
GUDIBANE TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.
6. SRI MANJUNATH
W/O LATE VENKTARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 EARS
R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE
GUDIBANE TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.
7. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA
W/O LATE VENKTARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE
GUDIBANE TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.
8. VENKATARAMANAPPA
S/O LATE SRI NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE
GUDIBANE TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.
9. SRI RAMARATHNAMMA
W/O LATE VENKTARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE
GUDIBANE TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT- 562 101.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44163
WP No. 26373 of 2023
HC-KAR
10. SRI JULIAS ABRAHAM
S/O SRI ABRAHAM
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO 466, 5TH MAIN
2ND BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT
KALYANA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040.
11. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA
D/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
12. SMT. RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
13. SMT. VARALAKSHMI
D/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
(11) TO (13) R/AT ANAKANOORU
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA 562 101.
14. SMT. JAYAMMA
D/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
15. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
D/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
(14) AND (15) RA/T PAVAJENAHALLI
SOMENAHALLI, HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK
CHIKKABALLAURA DISTRICT - 562 101.
16. SMT. SUDHEELAMMA
W/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/A PENUKONDA CITY AND TALUK
ANATHAPURA, ANDHRAPRADESH - 515 110.
17. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:44163
WP No. 26373 of 2023
HC-KAR
R/A REDDIPETE, VIJEEPURA VILLAGE
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MOHANA CHANDRA P, ADV., FOR R-11 TO R-17;
R-3 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED;
V/O/D 27.10.2025, NOTICE TO R-1,
R-2 & R-4 TO R-10 IS D/W)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 11.08.2023 AT ANNEXURE-L PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR SITTING AT GUDIBANDE IN OS NO.
218/2019 REJECTING THE COMPROMISE PETITION DATED
22.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS. 1 -6
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAME AND DISPOSE THE SUIT AS
SETTLED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendant no.8 is before this Court in this petition filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to
set aside the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Court of
Senior Civil Judge, Chikkaballapur, in O.S.No.218/2019
rejecting the compromise decree dated 22.04.2022 filed by the
petitioner/defendant no.8 and respondent nos.1 to 6 who are
plaintiffs in the said suit, and also to quash the order dated
20.01.2023 at Annexure-J passed by the Trial Court on an
NC: 2025:KHC:44163
HC-KAR
application filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC in
O.S.No.218/2019.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
3. O.S.No.218/2019 is filed by respondent nos.1 to 3 herein
seeking the relief of partition claiming 1/6th share in the suit
schedule property and also for declaration that the sale deed
dated 19.02.2005 executed in favour of defendant nos.7 & 8 is
not binding on them. In the said suit, IA no.5 was filed under
Order I Rule 10 of CPC by some of the family members of the
plaintiffs claiming that they have a share in the suit schedule
property and for the purpose of adjudicating their rights, they
are just and necessary parties to the suit. The said application
was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 20.01.2023 at
Annexure-J. It appears that the dispute between the plaintiffs
and defendant no.8 was settled and subsequently they had filed
a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC and had
requested the Trial Court to accept the said compromise
petition dated 22.04.2022. The same was rejected by the Trial
Court vide the order impugned dated 11.08.2023. Therefore,
NC: 2025:KHC:44163
HC-KAR
defendant no.8 who is the purchaser of a portion of the suit
schedule property is before this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition submits, that applicants in IA
no.5 are not necessary parties to the suit and the Trial Court
erred in allowing IA no.5. He submits that the dispute between
the plaintiffs and defendant no.8 inter se has been settled and
to that extent the compromise petition should have been
accepted and the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the
application filed on behalf of the petitioner. He has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of KATIKARA CHINTAMANI DORA VS GUNTREDDI
ANNAMANAIDU - (1974)1 SCC 567, and submits that in view
of the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, the Trial Court has
erred in passing the order impugned. He submits that as per
the terms of compromise, the plaintiffs do not intend to
continue the suit, and therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the prayer
made by defendant no.8 to accept the compromise petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:44163
HC-KAR
5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that
O.S.No.218/2019 is filed by the plaintiffs who are respondent
nos.1 to 3 in this petition seeking the relief of partition claiming
1/6th share in the suit schedule property, and also to declare
the sale deeds executed in favour of defendant nos.7 & 8 as
null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. A consequential
relief of permanent injunction is also sought in the suit.
6. It is trite that in a suit for partition, even the defendants
are considered as plaintiffs and every one of the parties in the
suit has a right to agitate their rights over the suit schedule
property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRASANTA
KUMAR SAHOO & ORS. V. CHARULATA SAHU & ORS - 2023
Live Law (SC) 262, has held that in a suit for partition, a
compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC which is not
signed by all the parties to the suit cannot be acted upon. The
said judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand,
wherein the Trial Court has rejected the prayer made by
defendant no.8 to record the compromise between him and
plaintiff nos.1 to 3, is rejected.
NC: 2025:KHC:44163
HC-KAR
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, and submits that in
Prasanta Kumar Sahoo's case supra, the said proviso has not
been considered. The proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC would
be applicable in a case where all the parties to the suit for
partition have signed the compromise petition, and
subsequently, there is a dispute between the parties who have
signed the compromise, and in such an event, the court is
required to decide the question raised by the party without
granting any adjournment. But the same is not the situation in
the present case. In the present case, defendant nos.1 to 6
have not at all signed the compromise petition, and therefore,
the Trial Court was fully justified in passing the order dated
11wed.08.2023. The judgment in Katikara Chintamani Dora's
case supra, has been passed in a case which arises out of a suit
which is filed for eviction, and therefore, the same cannot be
made applicable to the facts of this case, since the suit in the
present case is filed for partition and separate possession.
8. So far as the order passed on IA no.5 filed under Order I
Rule 10 CPC is concerned, the Trial Court having taken into
NC: 2025:KHC:44163
HC-KAR
consideration that the applicants in IA no.5 who claim to be the
members of the family have contended that they have a share
in the suit schedule property, has allowed the said application.
The Trial Court has observed that if the applicants in IA no.5
are not permitted to come on record, the same would lead to
multiplicity of proceedings and it is under these circumstances,
the Trial Court has allowed the application. Petitioner is only a
purchaser of portion of the suit schedule property. I, therefore,
do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order passed
by the Trial Court. Under the circumstances, I do not find any
merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
