Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anusuya W/O Chandrashekhar vs Smt. Dyamavva W/O Bagav on 6 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15176
RSA No. 100666 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100666 OF 2018 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANUSUYA W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR BADIGER,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GALAGI VILLAGE-581204,
TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. DYAMAVVA
W/O. BAGAV BASAVANTAPPA KALASAGOUDRA,
AGE: 70 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE WIFE AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GALAGI. TQ. KALAGHATAGI,
DIST. DHARWAD-581204.
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR 2. GURUNATH S/O. GADIGEPPA DARAGAD,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT R/O. GALAGI. TQ. KAALGHATAGI,
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2025.11.07 DIST. DHARWAD-581204.
14:29:02 +0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND C/R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KALAGHATAGI IN R.A.NO.101/2015
DATED 02.07.2018 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN
O.S.NO.61/2013 DATED 13.11.2014 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC KALAGHATAGI AND DECREE THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.61/2013,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15176
RSA No. 100666 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
respondents.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment in R.A.No.101/2015
passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaghatagi,
which confirmed the dismissal of O.S.No.61/2013 by the learned
Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaghatagi, the plaintiff is before this
Court in this appeal.
3. The facts that are relevant for the purpose of this
appeal are that the plaintiff is claiming rights in respect of the
property originally belonging to one Kalappa. It is contended that
the suit schedule property is totally measuring 5 Acres 3 Guntas
and out of which, 1 Acre 28 Guntas is situated at Hulakoppa
village and it was partitioned among the said Kalappa, Dyamavva
and the mother of defendant No.2, Yallavva. It was contended
that Kalappa was unmarried and he had bequeathed his portion
of 1 Acre 28 Guntas to the plaintiff under registered Will dated
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15176
HC-KAR
01.03.1989. It was further contended that the defendants'
objection to mutate the name of the appellant in the records
were dismissed by the Revenue Authorities and as such the
plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The
defendants are obstructing the same and as such, they may be
restrained by permanent injunction.
4. The defendant No.1 and 2 appeared and contended
that they had filed O.S.No.329/1992 against the plaintiff in
respect of the suit schedule property and it ended in
compromise. As per the compromise, 20 guntas of land out of 5
Acres 3 Guntas was allotted to the plaintiff and accordingly, the
plaintiff and defendants are in possession.
5. After adducing the evidence, the Trial Court
dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has
suppressed the compromise decree entered into in
O.S.No.329/1992 whereby the plaintiff has been allotted 20
guntas of land out of 5 Acres 3 Guntas. The pleadings of the
plaintiff are contrary to the compromise decree in
O.S.No.329/1992 and also that in the face of the compromise
decree, the suit is not maintainable.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15176
HC-KAR
6. The plaintiff approached the First Appellate Court in
appeal and the First appellate Court in its judgment noticed that
the appellant had not only suppressed the outcome of
O.S.No.329/1992 but she had also filed O.S.No.187/2014, which
came to be dismissed. Therefore, there is material suppression of
the facts by the plaintiff and as such, no ground is made out by
the plaintiff.
7. It is pertinent to note that before the First Appellate
Court, the appellant had filed an application to withdraw the said
suit and file appropriate comprehensive suit. The First Appellate
Court having found that the said application is not bonafide, the
same came to be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the suit in O.S.No.329/1992 ended in compromise and an
area measuring 20 Guntas was allotted to the plaintiff. It is
submitted that there is obstruction by the defendants in respect
of this 20 Guntas of land. On the contrary, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents submits that the claim of the
plaintiff is not in respect of the said 20 Guntas of land, which was
allotted in the compromise petition, but it is in respect of an
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15176
HC-KAR
additional 20 Gunts of land, which is belonging to the
defendants.
9. It is pertinent to note that the compromise decree in
O.S.No.329/1992, having become final, has to be respected by
both the parties. If at all the claim of the appellant/plaintiff is in
respect of different property than what is mentioned in the
compromise petition, then the same is not permissible, if the
entire property was the subject matter of the compromise
petition. If any property, which is not included in the compromise
petition is the claim made by the plaintiffs, then such separate
suit is maintainable. It is pertinent to note that 1 Acre 28 Guntas
claimed by the plaintiff is part of the compromise decree in
O.S.No.329/1992. Since it has become final, the question of
challenging the same does not arise. An effort was made by the
appellant by filing a suit in O.S.No.187/2014, which also came to
be dismissed. It is not known why the said fact is not disclosed
by the appellant in the present suit or the appeal. Anyhow, the
right to question the decree in O.S.No.329/1992 has been lost by
the appellant. In that view of the matter, the findings of the Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court cannot be found fault with.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15176
HC-KAR
Withdrawal of O.S.No.61/2013 with a liberty to file a fresh suit
also is futile since the compromise decree has become final. So
also another suit filed in O.S.No.187/2014 has also attained
finality by the judgment dated 16.08.2018.
10. Learned counsel brings to the notice of this Court
that after disposal of O.S.No.187/2014, the appellant has filed
another suit in O.S.No.99/2018, which came to be dismissed for
non-prosecution. Nothing prevented the appellant to file a
comprehensive suit when she thought of filing O.S.No.99/2018.
Therefore, no grounds are made out by the appellant in the
present appeal to entertain the same. No substantial question of
law arises in the present appeal and the appeal being devoid of
merits stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
11. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration
and are disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
YAN/ CT:PA
