- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9237 WP No. 103033 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 103033 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. SUMITRA W/O. IRAPPA GUGGARI AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PALBHAVI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. IRANAGOUDA K.KABBUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. MALLAPPA S/O. GURUBASAPPA KADASHETTI AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PALBHAVI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591235. 2. SHRI. SANGAPPA S/O. GURUBASAPPA KADASHETTI AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PALBHAVI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591235. 3. SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. MAHADEV VANNALE AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITNAL, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591235. 4. SMT. GOURAVVA W/O. REVAPPA KARGANVE AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAVASUDDI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591235. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KIRANKUMAR S.CHATTIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.01 15:58:30 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9237 WP No. 103033 of 2024 NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAIBAG AT RAIBAG IN O.S. NO.540/2021 DATED 30/09/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-F; CONSEQUENTLY, SET ASIDE THE COMPROMISED ENTERED BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 DATED 22/10/2021 IN O.S. NO. 905/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAIBAG VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 14.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) The defendant No.4 in O.S.No.540/2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag, has filed this petition challenging the order dated 30.09.2021 and consequently set aside the compromise entered into between respondents No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.905/2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9237 WP No. 103033 of 2024 2. (i) The respondent No.2 had filed a suit against the petitioner and other respondents seeking partition and separate possession in O.S.No.125/2018 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag at Belgaum. The suit ended in a compromise before the Lok Adalat. As per the terms of the compromise, the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2 acknowledged that they were joint owners of the suit schedule properties. (ii) When things stood thus, respondents No.1 and 2 allegedly colluding with each other had filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.540/2021 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag at Belgaum. In the said suit, the petitioner was not arrayed as a party initially. Thereafter, the petitioner and others were impleaded. In the said suit, the respondents No.1 and 2 did not mention about the earlier compromise reported in O.S.No.125/2018. The respondents No.1 and 2 claimed in O.S.No.540/2021 that the suit properties were the ancestral properties and that they were entitled for half share therein. The suit ended in compromise before the Lok Adalat. In the compromise, it was mentioned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9237 WP No. 103033 of 2024 that the petitioner who was then married, had given up her right over the properties in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2 and it was further mentioned that the suit properties were jointly retained by the respondents No.1 and 2. 3. The petitioner contends that the respondents No.1 and 2 thereafter filed another suit in O.S.No.905/2021 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag. In the said suit too, they did not mention about the earlier compromise reported in O.S.No.125/2018. This suit also ended in a compromise before the Lok Adalat. As per this compromise, the respondents No.1 and 2 had partitioned the suit properties. 4. The petitioner contends that the respondents No.1 and 2 acted fraudulently with an intention to defeat her rights in the suit properties. Therefore, she filed a suit in O.S.No.66/2023 claiming 1/5th share in the suit properties and also sought for a declaration that the compromise reported in O.S.No.905/2021 did not bind her. The petitioner after realizing that a fresh suit was not maintainable, filed a memo to withdraw O.S.No.66/2023 and accordingly, it was dismissed. The petitioner has thereafter challenged the order dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9237 WP No. 103033 of 2024 30.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.540/2021 by which the suit was compromised and she has also challenged the compromise entered by the respondents No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.905/2021. 5. Sri.Iranagouda K.Kabbur, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was a party in O.S.No.125/2018 which was filed for partition and separate possession and the said suit was compromised in terms of which it was agreed that the petitioner and the respondents No.1 and 2 were the co-owners of the suit schedule property. He submits that the respondents No.1 and 2 inter se conspired to file an other suit in O.S.No.540/2021 and managed to get the same compromised before the Lok Adalat, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner had relinquished her rights in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2. He contends that since the petitioner was a party to the suit, she was bound to challenge the compromise and she was not entitled to file a fresh suit in view of the express bar contained in Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. He contends that the respondents No.1 and 2 thereafter filed another suit in O.S.No.905/2021 inter se and got the same compromised in terms of which the suit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9237 WP No. 103033 of 2024 properties were partitioned between them. He therefore contends that the respondents No.1 and 2 have acted fraudulently in bringing about an unconscionable and colourable compromise affecting the interest of the petitioner. He therefore prays that the impugned compromise in O.S.No.540/2021 and O.S.No.905/2021 be set at naught. 6. Per contra, Sri.Kirankumar S.Chattimath, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 contended that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.66/2023 and had withdrawn the suit without seeking liberty to file a fresh suit. He therefore contends that the petitioner cannot challenge the compromise entered into in O.S.No.540/2021 and O.S.No.905/2021. He also contends that the petitioner has slept over her rights in not challenging the compromise soon after it was reported. Therefore, he contends that this petition is filed belatedly and no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9237 WP No. 103033 of 2024 8. It is seen from the compromise reported in O.S.No.125/2018 that the respondent No.2 herein had filed the said suit against respondent No.1, respondent No.4, petitioner and the wife of respondent No.2 for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit properties. This suit was compromised in terms of which, all the parties accepted that the plaintiff (respondent No.2 herein), defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) and defendant No.3 (petitioner herein) are the joint owners of the suit schedule properties and that defendant No.2-Smt.Gouravva had relinquished her right in favour of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 3. Therefore, the respondents No.1 and 2 had acknowledged that the petitioner herein had an undivided share in all the suit schedule properties. The suit filed in O.S.No.125/2018 was in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.88/3A, 99/4A/1, 100/4C, 219/2B-P1, 220/2B and 220/6. 9. Later, the respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.540/2021 against the respondent No.2 for partition and separate possession of the very same properties apart from another Sy.No.13/3A of Palabhavi village. The petitioner herein was not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9237 WP No. 103033 of 2024 arrayed as a party initially and thereafter, was arrayed as defendant No.4 in the said suit. This suit was again compromised in terms of which, it was stated that the petitioner herein had relinquished her share in the suit properties in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2. A perusal of the compromise indicates that the petitioner was represented by an advocate Mr.A.B.Tegur and she had signed it. By that time, the petitioner was married to Mr.Irappa Guggari. This compromise was reported on 22.09.2021, in terms of which, the respondents No.1 and 2 had agreed that they were entitled to equal share in the suit properties. The petitioner had relinquished her share in the suit properties in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2. 10. Later, the respondents No.1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.905/2021 in respect of the very same properties where they reported a compromise, in terms of which both of them divided the properties in two equal shares. 11. It is not the case of the petitioner that she was forced or compelled to consent for a compromise in O.S.No.540/2021, by which she relinquished her right in favour - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9237 WP No. 103033 of 2024 of the respondents No.1 and 2. It is also not known why the petitioner kept quiet from 30.09.2021 till she filed O.S.No.66/2023 challenging the compromise in O.S.No.540/2021. In the compromise reported in O.S.No.540/2021, it was specifically mentioned that the respondents No.1 and 2 had met the expenses of the marriage of the petitioner and that the petitioner was married into a decent family. Moreover, the total extent of land available in the family was approximately 12 acres. The respondents No.1 and 2 are agriculturists and therefore, the compromise reported in O.S.No.540/2021 by which the petitioner relinquished her share in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2 is clearly understandable. This apart, the sister of the petitioner who had relinquished her share in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2 which was recorded in O.S.No.125/2018 thereafter reiterated in O.S.No.540/2021, did not challenge the compromise. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner and the respondents No.1 and 2 had settled the issue amongst themselves, in terms of which, she consented to relinquish her share in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the compromise entered into was fraudulent and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9237 WP No. 103033 of 2024 not binding on her. In that view of the matter, this writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE RH Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3