Karnataka High Court
Smt. R. Puttananjamma vs Shri. R.Madaiah on 5 November, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45027
WP No. 59198 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 59198 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. R. PUTTANANJAMMA
(SINCE DEAD REP BY LRS)
1a. S. PARAMESHWARA
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
#152, 1ST MAIN ROAD
NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL
BENNIGANAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 016.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH T HEBBAR, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally
SMT. NANJAMMA
signed by SINCE DECEASED
NANDINI M S REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL
Location: REPRESENTATIVES, WHO ARE
HIGH COURT
OF RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3.
KARNATAKA
1. SHRI R. MADAIAH
S/O LATE REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
2. SHRI R PUTTAMADAIAH
S/O LATE REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
3. SHRI R. GIRIMADAIAH
S/O LATE REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45027
WP No. 59198 of 2016
HC-KAR
4. SMT. BASAMMA
W/O MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
5. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA
W/O R PUTTAMADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
6. SMT. SHIVARUDRAMMA
W/O GIRIMADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
SL.NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT
NO.1, 1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD
BENNIGANAHALLI OLD MADRAS
ROAD, DOORAVANINAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 016.
N. SIDDALINGAIAH
S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH
SINCE DECEASED - NO LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES.
7. SHRI SHIVARAJU M
S/O LATE MADAMMA
GRANDSON OF
LATE NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
REVAMMA
W/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH
SINCE DECEASED HER LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE IS ALREADY
ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT NO.8.
8. SHRI N VEERABHADRAIAH
S/O LATE REVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
NANJAMMA
D/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH
SINCE DECEASED, HER LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE ARE ALREADY
ON RECORD AS RESPONDENTS 9 TO 10.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45027
WP No. 59198 of 2016
HC-KAR
9. SHRI CHANDRA
S/O LATE NANJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 7 TO 9 ARE
R/AT BENNIGANAHALLI
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
DOORAVANINAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 016.
10. SMT. BHUVANESHWARI
D/O LATE NANJAMMA
W/O SHRI RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO. 96/7, OLD MILL ROAD
KAMANHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 084.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANAGHA JAYAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR
SRI S.V. SRINIVAS, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-4;
SRI SUBRAMANYA KAUSHIK R.S, ADV.,
FOR R-5 & R-7 TO R-10;
R-3, R-6 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DT.3.8.2016 PASSED BY THE XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH NO.7) REJECTING
I.A.NO.1/2013 FILED U/S 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE FOR RE-
OPENING THE CASE AND I.A.NO.2/2013 FILED UNDER ORDER XXIII
RULE 3 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC FOR DE NOVO TRIAL AS PER ANNX-A
BY ALLOWING THE SAME AS PRAYED FOR.
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. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 03.08.2016
NC: 2025:KHC:45027
HC-KAR
passed on IA nos.1 & 2 of 2013 in O.S.2107/1988 by the Court
of XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Suit in O.S.No.2107/1988 was filed by the petitioner and
respondent nos.1 to 8 herein before the jurisdictional Civil
Court at Bengaluru, seeking the relief of partition and separate
possession of the suit schedule properties and also for mesne
profits. The said suit was decreed on 23.07.1988 on the basis
of a compromise petition filed by the parties to the suit.
Subsequently, on 05.10.2001, petitioner herein who was
plaintiff no.5 in O.S.No.2107/1988 had challenged the
compromise decree passed in O.S.No.2107/1988 by filing a
fresh suit in O.S.No.7732/2001. The said suit was dismissed on
the ground that a fresh suit was barred under Order XXIII Rule
3A of CPC, and aggrieved by the same, petitioner had filed
R.F.A.No.421/2010 before this Court and this Court on
27.06.2013 dismissed the said appeal with an observation that,
in the event petitioner files any application in
O.S.No.2107/1988 with a prayer to set aside the compromise
decree passed in the said suit, such application/petition shall be
NC: 2025:KHC:45027
HC-KAR
considered and decided in accordance with law. It is under
these circumstances, IA nos.1 & 2 of 2013 were filed by the
petitioner in O.S.No.2107/1988 under Section 151 of CPC and
under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC with prayers' to re-open the
case and to set aside the compromise decree dated 23.07.1988
passed in O.S.No.2107/1988. The prayer made in IA nos.1 & 2
of 2013 by the petitioner was opposed by the contesting
respondents by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order
impugned has rejected IA nos.1 & 2 of 2013 filed in
O.S.No.2107/1988, and being aggrieved by the same,
petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition submits that the compromise
decree was obtained by fraud. Fraud vitiates everything and
even the question of limitation is subject to fraud. He submits
that no equity can be pleaded by the respondents once fraud is
established. He submits Trial Court has failed to appreciate this
aspect of the matter and in support of his arguments, he has
placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in WP
NC: 2025:KHC:45027
HC-KAR
No.35720/2015 C/w WP No.36084/2015 disposed off on
22.08.2017.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting
respondents has opposed the prayer made in the petition and
submits that petitioner was plaintiff No.5 in OS No.2107/1988
and she is a signatory to the compromise petition based on
which compromise decree was passed in OS No.2107/1988.
Petitioner has sold major portion of the properties which were
allotted to her share under the compromise decree passed in
OS No.2107/1988. The Trial Court having appreciated this
aspect of the matter has rightly dismissed the applications filed
on behalf of the petitioner, in OS No.2107/1988. Accordingly,
she prays to dismiss the petition.
6. A perusal of the material on record would go to show that
OS No.2107/1988 was filed seeking the relief of partition and
separate possession of the suit schedule properties and also for
mesne profits. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 8 had claimed 1/12th share
each in the suit schedule properties. Petitioner is plaintiff no.5
in the suit. The suit was decreed on 23.07.1988 based on the
compromise petition submitted by the parties to the suit. After
NC: 2025:KHC:45027
HC-KAR
a lapse of more than 13 years from the date of decree passed
in OS No.2107/1988, the petitioner herein had filed OS
No.7732/2001 with a prayer to set-aside the compromise
decree passed OS No.2107/1988. The said suit was dismissed
on the ground that fresh suit was barred under Order XXIII
Rule 3-A of CPC and the said judgment and decree passed in
OS No.7732/2001 was confirmed in RFA No.421/2010 by this
Court and while dismissing RFA No.421/2010, this Court had
observed that in the event, petitioner files any application in OS
No.2107/1988 with a prayer to set-aside the compromise
decree passed in the said suit, such application/petition shall be
considered and decided in accordance with law. It is under
these circumstances, IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 were filed in OS
No.2107/1988, with a prayer to re-open the case and also to
set-aside the compromise decree dated 23.07.1988 passed in
OS No.2107/1988.
7. The prayer made in IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 were opposed
by the contesting defendants by filing objections and a specific
plea is raised in the statement of objections stating that
petitioner who was plaintiff No.5 in OS No.2107/1988 was a
NC: 2025:KHC:45027
HC-KAR
party to the compromise petition which was duly signed by her
and in terms of the compromise petition, final decree was
drawn on 23.07.1988. It is also stated that the petitioner who
was allotted share in the suit schedule properties in terms of
the compromise decree has subsequently executed multiple
Sale Deeds and has sold the properties allotted to her under
the compromise decree for valid sale consideration and
thereafter, has belatedly challenged the compromise decree.
The material on record would go to show that petitioner, who
was plaintiff No.5 in OS No.2107/1988 has been allotted Item
Nos.1 and 2 of schedule "I" property
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of
arguments had submitted that though contesting defendants
had raised an objection that petitioner has executed multiple
Sale Deeds in respect of the properties allotted to her share
under the compromise decree in OS No.2107/1988, no
document was produced in support of his contention. This Court
had therefore called upon the contesting respondents to
produce copy of the aforesaid Sale Deeds. Learned counsel for
the contesting respondents has produced copy of the five Sale
NC: 2025:KHC:45027
HC-KAR
Deeds executed by the petitioner which are referred to above
along with a memo dated 27.10.2025 after serving a copy of
the same to learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. Perusal of the said sale deeds would go to show that the
said documents prima facie show that properties sold under the
said Sale Deeds are described as ancestral or joint family
properties of the petitioner. It prima facie appears that
properties sold under the aforesaid Sale Deeds are part and
parcel of the properties which were allotted to the share of the
petitioner under the compromise decree passed in OS
No.2107/1988. Though the petitioner has disputed during the
course of arguments that she has not executed any such Sale
Deeds, no such contention is raised in the pleadings in this writ
petition. Even otherwise, copy of the aforesaid Sale Deeds is
now produced before this Court by the contesting defendants
and petitioner has not disputed that the said Sale Deeds are
not executed by her. Under the circumstances, I am of the
opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting IA
Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 filed in OS No.2107/1988, which are not
only bereft of merits but also filed belatedly.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45027
HC-KAR
9. It is true that fraud vitiates everything and even question
of limitation is subject to fraud and no equities can be claimed
by any party in the event it is found that any order was
obtained by playing fraud. But in the case on hand, petitioner
has miserably failed to make out a case that fraud was played
by other parties to the suit and thereby a compromise decree
was passed in OS No.2107/1988. Petitioner having executed
Sale Deeds in respect of the properties which were allotted to
her under the compromise decree cannot be permitted to raise
the ground of fraud thereafter belatedly. The judgment of this
Court in WP No.35720/2015 C/w WP No.36084/2015 on which
reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner,
therefore, cannot be made applicable in this case. Under the
circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
According, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
DN
