- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9274 WP No. 28217 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 28217 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O. LATE LAKSHMANAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. SMT. NIRUPAMA, D/O. LATE LAKSHMANAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 3. SRI. DEEPU S/O. LATE LAKSHMANAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 ARE ARE RESIDING AT NO. 5257, SUN-RISE SCHOOL ROAD, SUBHASHNAGAR, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KIRAN M.P, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MADHUSUDHAN M.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA D/O. LATE UGRAIAH, W/O. LATE RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9274 WP No. 28217 of 2018 RESIDING AT NO. 1915, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 12TH CROSS, RPC LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 040. 2. SMT. GANGANARASAMMA D/O. LATE UGRAIAH, W/O. LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GIDDENAHALLI VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH - 562 123. 3. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA D/O. LATE UGRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.52, 6TH CROSS, DEFENCE COLONY, NEAR SRINIDHI SCHOOL, HESARGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 073. 4. SMT. ANURADHA D/O. LATE UGRAIAH, W/O. LATE N.S.S. GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.155, SANJAYANAGAR, AECS LAYOUT, RMV 2ND STAGE B, BENGALURU - 560 094. 5. SRI. RAMACHANDRAIAH S/O. LATE UGRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GORINABELE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9274 WP No. 28217 of 2018 6. SRI. LAKSHMIKANTHA S/O. LATE LAKSHMANAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 5257, SUN-RISE SCHOOL ROAD, SUBHASHNAGAR, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. 7. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAIAH S/O. LATE UGRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PARAMANNA LAYOUT, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. 8. SRI. GOPAL S/O. LATE UGRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GORINABELE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAN S, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. SHARATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R8; R1, R5, R6, R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.07.2016 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NELAMANGALA ON COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.190 OF 2014 VIDE ANNX-E. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9274 WP No. 28217 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Suit in OS.No.190/2014 is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4, who are the plaintiffs' against other respondents and the petitioners herein, who are the defendants, for the relief of partition and separate possession of certain items of the properties described in the schedule to the plaint. 3. The case of the plaintiffs’ is that one Ugraiah, was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties which are ancestral joint-family properties. The said Ugraiah passed away, leaving behind plaintiffs’, defendant No.1, defendant Nos.6 and 7, husband and father, respectively, of defendant Nos.2 to 5 to succeed to the suit properties. 4. Since the share of the plaintiffs was not granted, they filed the suit for partition. An application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC came to be filed by the plaintiffs’ and defendant No.7, reporting their amicable resolution of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9274 WP No. 28217 of 2018 dispute with respect to item Nos.11 and 14 of the suit schedule property. The said compromise petition records that on receipt of Rs.5 Lakhs each paid by defendant No.7 to the plaintiffs’ in lieu of their share they have given up their claim in respect of item Nos.11 to 14 of the suit schedule properties. Objection to the said application came to be filed by defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 contending that the compromise entered into between the plaintiffs’ and defendant No.7 on the premise of defendant No.7 being the owner of item Nos.11 to 14, even before the conclusion arrived at by the Court cannot be accepted. Hence, sought for rejection of the compromise. 5. By the impugned order dated 11.07.2016 rejecting the said objection of defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5, the Trial Court accepted the compromise petition and directed for drawing the partial decree. It is this order which is put into challenge. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court ought to have made the petitioners who were defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5, before the Trial Court as party to the compromise and without making them parties to the compromise ought not to have accepted the same. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9274 WP No. 28217 of 2018 7. Heard and perused the records. 8. The Trial Court while considering the objections raised by the petitioners/defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 has taken note of the fact that the petitioners/defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 have specifically contended that there was already a partition amongst the family members, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled for any share in the suit properties. The Trial Court has also taken into consideration that petitioners/defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 have not sought for any share in the suit schedule properties. Since, in terms of the above compromise, plaintiffs’ were giving up their claim in respect of item Nos.11 to 14 of the suit schedule properties only as against defendant No.7 by receiving a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs each, the Trial Court has found that such an arrangement for agreement would not affect the rights of other parties. 9. This Court do not find any irregularity and illegality in the said order. Suit for partition is still pending consideration, merely because one of the defendants has agreed to give certain amounts in lieu of the plaintiffs share, who have given up their claims as against him, same would not mean shares of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9274 WP No. 28217 of 2018 other parties have either been denied or determined in the matter. The said aspect of the matter has to be adjudicated during the trial. Since there cannot be any impediment in the plaintiffs giving up their claim in respect of part of the suit schedule properties, no irregularity and illegality can be found. Keeping open other contentions to be urged by the parties in the suit, petition is dismissed as the same lacks merits. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK