[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shamala vs Kumari Anita on 22 January, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:436
RFA No. 200016 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200016 OF 2026 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHAMALA
D/O LATE DHULAPPA BELAMKAR,
AND W/O LATE CHANDRAKANT BELUR,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
HOUSEHOLD,
R/O H.NO.11-366/117/1, KANAKA NAGAR,
SAMATA COLONY ROAD, NEAR WATER TANK,
DATTA MANDIR, BRAHMAPUR, KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY MISS. AKSHATA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
RENUKA
Location: HIGH 1. KUMARI ANITA
COURT OF D/O LATE UDAYKUMAR,
KARNATAKA
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O E-7/610 AND 7-420,
NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, MIJGORI ROAD,
MOMINPURA, KALABURAGI-585103.
2. KUMAR MANIKANT
S/O LATE UDAYKUMAR,
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
MINOR U/G OF NATURAL MOTHER
SMT. SHASHIKALA
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:436
RFA No. 200016 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. KUMARI BHAGYASHREE
D/O LATE UDAYKUMAR
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
MINOR U/G OF NATURAL MOTHER
SMT. SHASHIKALA.
4. SMT. SHASHIKALA
W/O LATE UDAYKUMAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE AND
AGRICULTURE
R/O E-7/610 AND 7-420,
NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, MIJGORI ROAD,
MOMINPURA, KALABURAGI-585103.
5. JAGANNATH
S/O DHULAPPA BELAMKAR,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O H. NO.7-420, DARGA ROAD, MOMINPURA,
KALABURAGI-585103.
6. MALLIKARJUN
S/O DHULAPPA BELAMKAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O H. NO.7-420, DARGA ROAD, MOMINPURA,
KALABURAGI-585103.
7. VIJAYALAXMI
W/O MALLIKARJUN BELAMKAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O H. NO.7-420, DARGA ROAD, MOMINPURA,
KALABURAGI-585103.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 (1) OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND THE
COMPROMISE DECREE PASSED IN OS NO.318/2023 DATED
11-11-2024 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, KALABURAGI, BE SET-ASIDE AND MATTER BE
REMANDED BACK FOR FRESH DISPOSAL OF SAID SUIT AS PER
LAW,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:436
RFA No. 200016 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who
was not a party in the original suit in O.S. No.318/2023.
The said suit came to be filed by respondent Nos.1 to
4/plaintiffs against respondent Nos.5 to 7/defendants. The
said suit came to be decreed by virtue of a compromise
decree dated 11.11.2024 by the IV Additional Senior Civil
Judge and CJM Court, Kalaburagi on the basis of the
compromise petition filed by the parties to the proceedings
i.e., O.S.No.318/2023.
3. It is the contention of the appellant that she is
one of the sisters but she was not made as a party in the
original suit and behind her back, the compromise decree
has been obtained without providing any share to her in
NC: 2026:KHC-K:436
HC-KAR
the suit schedule properties. Therefore, she is before this
Court seeking to set aside the compromise decree and for
allotment of share on the ground that the parties to the
suit colluded with each other and have obtained
compromise decree by filing the compromise petition to
which the appellant is not a party. Therefore, the
compromise petition and the compromise decree are not
lawful, as the appellant is not made as a party and neither
was she provided any share in the suit schedule property
for which she is entitled to.
4. It is seen that when a compromise petition is
filed in any proceedings and the same is decreed by the
Court, the parties to the proceedings as well as the non-
party to the proceedings are required to approach the very
same Court which passed the compromise decree to
challenge the same on the ground of either fraud or not
arrayed as a party and having obtained a compromise
decree behind the back. There is a bar contemplated
NC: 2026:KHC-K:436
HC-KAR
under Proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil
Procedure for filing a fresh suit. Under the circumstances,
the appellant would have to approach the very same Court
which passed the compromise decree to agitate her right
and urge all grounds that are taken up before this Court in
this appeal by filing an application or a petition before the
very same Court which passed the decree. Upon filing such
an application or a petition, the same shall be considered
by the learned Trial Court by hearing the parties and by
passing suitable orders in accordance with law. This view
of mine is fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Triloki Nath Singh Vs. Anirudh
Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. and Ors. [AIR 2020 SC 2111]
and also in the case of Navratan Lal Sharma Vs. Radha
Mohan Sharma and Others [2024 INSC 970].
5. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(a) The Regular First Appeal is disposed of.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:436
HC-KAR
(b) Liberty is reserved to the appellant to approach
the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM
Court, Kalaburagi by filing an application or a
petition before the very same Court. Upon filing
such application, the same shall be considered
afresh by providing a proper hearing and
opportunity to the appellant herein.
(c) Ordered accordingly.
(d) The certified copies furnished in this appeal
shall be returned to the appellant upon
retaining a photocopy by the registry within a
week.
(e) Pending interlocutory applications pale into
insignificance.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
RSP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4
CT:SI
