- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6002 WP No. 109909 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 109909 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHALINI W/O. DATTATRAYA INAMDAR, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOUSE NO.261, KALMESHWA GALLI, KABBUR-591 222, TQ : CHIKKODI, DIST :BELAGAVI. (PETITIONER NO.1 HAS DIED AND PETITIONER NO. 2 TO 4 ARE HER LR’S.) 2. SMT. KUSUMA W/O. DATTATRAYA INAMDAR, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOUSE NO.261, KALMESHWA GALLI, KABBUR-591 222, TQ : CHIKKODI, DIST :BELAGAVI. (PETITIONER NO.2 HAS DIED AND PETITIONER NO. 3 TO 4 ARE TREATED AS HER LR’S.) 3. SHRI. SHAMRAO S/O. DATTATRAYA INAMDAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOUSE NO.261, KALMESHWA GALLI, KABBUR-591 222, TQ : CHIKKODI, DIST :BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. SUPRIYA W/O. SUDHIR KULKARNI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOUSE NO.261, Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.09 15:15:07 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6002 WP No. 109909 of 2015 KALMESHWA GALLI, KABBUR-591 222, TQ : CHIKKODI, DIST :BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADV.FOR PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 4) AND: 1. SRI. SHASHIKANT S/O. SHAMARAO INAMDAR, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MAVINAHONDA-591317, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. (RESPONDENT NO.1 HAS DIED PETITIONERS NO.3, 4 AND RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 8 ARE TREATED AS HIS LR’S.) 2. SHRI. ARAVIND S/O. SHAMARAO INAMDAR, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHINCHALI-591 217 TAL: RAIBAG, DIST : BELAGAVI. 3. SHRI. MUKUND S/O. SHAMARAO INAMDAR, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O: MAVINHONDA-591 317 TAL: RAIBAG, DIST : BELAGAVI MAHADEV S/O. SHAMARAO INAMDAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 4. SMT. MANDAKINI W/O. MAHADEV INAMDAR, AGE 58 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MAVINHONDA-591 317 TAL: RAIBAG, DIST : BELAGAVI. 5. SMT. ANJANA W/O. PRAVEEN KULKARNI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD, R/O: C/O. SHOBHA ENTERPRISES JAMAKHANDI-587 301, DIST: BAGALKOT. 6. VAMAN S/O. MAHADEV INAMDAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O: MAVINHONDA-591317 TAL : RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6002 WP No. 109909 of 2015 7. ANAND S/O. DIGAMBAR NADAGOUDA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC : LEGAL PRACTITIONER, R/O: MUTALIK GALLI, HUKKERI-591309, DIST: BELAGAVI. 8. SMT. AMBUTAI @ VIJAYALAXMI W/O. ASHOK JAVALI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD, R/O: C/O. DEEPAK ASHOK JAVALI, ADVOCATE, SHIVABASAV NAGAR, HIREKERUR-581111, DIST : HAVERI. (RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 6 ARE TREATED AS LR’S OF DECEASED DEFENDANT NO.3 V/O. DATED 06.01.2025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHUVEER S. SATTIGERI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.8) (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 7 - SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE THIS COURT BE PLEASED TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 05.12.2012 PASSED BY THE LOK ADALAT IN O.S.NO.84/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6002 WP No. 109909 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) Captioned petition is filed assailing the compromise decree rendered by the Lok-Adalath in O.S.No.84/2012, which is evidenced at Annexure-D. 2. Before we proceed to examine the validity of the compromise Decree, this Court deems it fit to cull out the family tree of the parties, which is as under: Shamarao (died) Rukminibai (died) Manohar Dattatraya Arvind Mukund Mahadev Geeta Shrikant Ambutai (died) (died) (died) (Plft.) =Shalini = Kusuma Anand Shamarao Supriya 3. Facts leading to the case are as under : One Shamarao is shown to be the propositus and his wife is Rukminibai. The couple had 08 children. Respondent No.1 before this Court namely Shrikant Shamrao Inamdar filed the suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession. The present petitioners represent the branch of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6002 WP No. 109909 of 2015 Dattatraya, who is the second son of propositus-Shyamarao. A compromise is recorded by the Lok-Adalat and in terms of the joint compromise petition, a compromise Decree has been drawn in O.S.No.84/2012 by the Lok-Adalath. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners No.2 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.8 has brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.6 has died and petitioners have to file legal representatives’ application to bring the legal representatives of respondent No.6 on record. 6. This Court finds it pertinent to observe that the present lis has remained pending since the year 2012, and therefore, any attempt to delay its resolution further cannot be countenanced. The objections raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.8 do not merit acceptance. It is not in dispute that respondents No.3 to 6 are the legal representatives of the original defendant—Mahadev, who was a signatory to the compromise petition. However, among them, only respondent No.6, the son of Mahadev - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6002 WP No. 109909 of 2015 Inamdar, has chosen to contest these proceedings. Respondents No.4 and 5, who are also legal heirs of Mahadev, have neither appeared nor raised any objections. In light of this, the Court finds that there is sufficient and effective representation of the estate of Mahadev, and therefore this court is not inclined to direct the petitioners to bring the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.6 on record, as such an exercise would serve no substantive purpose and would only contribute to further procedural delays. 7. Upon a closer and meticulous examination of the compromise petition, this Court is of the considered view that the compromise decree passed by the Lok-Adalat suffers from fundamental legal infirmities. The very basis of a valid compromise under the law is the voluntary and informed consent of all necessary parties. In the present case, it is admitted that the petitioners, who are joint family members and parties to the original suit, were not signatories to the compromise petition. Despite this, the Lok-Adalat proceeded to pass a decree based on the said compromise. The learned - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6002 WP No. 109909 of 2015 counsel for respondent No.8 has argued that the compromise is valid on the ground that the petitioners have been allotted a share in the joint family properties under the said compromise. However, this Court is unable to accept such a submission. In matters relating to joint family property, it is well established that all members of the family possess pre- existing rights, and any mode of partition or settlement thereof must necessarily involve the consent of all such members. A compromise can only be valid when it is either adjudicated through proper legal process or entered into with the full and voluntary participation of all co-owners. The assertion by the petitioners’ counsel that the properties allotted to the petitioners under the compromise were specifically chosen to cause prejudice and were deliberately assigned to them further casts serious doubts on the fairness and legality of the compromise. 8. The contention raised by respondent No.8 that the petitioners were placed ex-parte and therefore the compromise decree drawn by the Lok-Adalat is lawful, binding, and enforceable, is wholly untenable. Even in a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6002 WP No. 109909 of 2015 situation where a party is placed ex-parte, it does not grant unfettered liberty to the remaining parties to unilaterally enter into a compromise and seek validation of such compromise through the Lok-Adalat mechanism. The law mandates that any compromise, particularly in a suit involving joint family property, must involve the voluntary consent of all necessary and affected parties. The mere fact that a share is allotted to a party who has not consented or signed the compromise petition does not cure the defect or confer legal sanctity upon the compromise decree. The non- participation and non-consent of the petitioners, despite being necessary parties with pre-existing rights, renders the compromise decree inherently defective and violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the compromise decree cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 9. Furthermore, it is of considerable significance that except for respondent No.8, none of the contesting respondents have chosen to appear or contest the present petition. This lack of opposition from the other legal representatives further strengthens the petitioners’ case. The - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6002 WP No. 109909 of 2015 suit itself was instituted in 2012, and the present writ petition has been pending since 2015. Despite the pendency of the matter, the compromise petition was entertained and a decree was drawn by the Lok-Adalat without any due diligence or inquiry as to whether all the joint family members, particularly those who were parties to the suit, had signed the compromise. Such a lapse goes to the root of the matter. In view of the foregoing circumstances, this Court is compelled to hold that the compromise decree passed in the present case is unlawful, invalid, and unsustainable in law. It has caused manifest prejudice to the petitioners who were excluded from the compromise process, and therefore, the decree is liable to be and is hereby set aside. 10. For the forgoing reasons, this Court passed the following : ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) The Decree dated 05.12.2012 passed by the Lok-Adalath in O.S.No.84/2012 on the file of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6002 WP No. 109909 of 2015 Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag is hereby set aside. (iii) Petitioners are reserved with liberty to seek necessary orders to work out their rights in the suit by contesting the proceedings. (iv) If trial Court finds that the present petitioners are placed ex-parte, the petitioners case can be entertained only after appropriate orders are passed since petitioners are placed ex-parte. (v) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate application to recall that order placing petitioners’ ex-parte. (vi) All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CKK Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4