- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41680 WP No. 31347 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.31347 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. G.V.GOWRAMMA W/O. LATE.T.GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT VENUKALLA GUDDA VILLAGE DHARMAPURA HOBLI HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURAGA-577 546. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K MURTHY.,ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. LALITHAMMA, W/O V.S. NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT KAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU - 572 135 …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE LOK- ADALATH ORDER DATED 10-2-2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTIAL DECREE AS PER ANNEXURE-B DATED 10-2- 2020 IN O.S.NO.305/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA AND PERMIT/ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO CONTEST THE SUIT IN O S.NO.305/2019 AS PER LAW ON MERITS BY FILING HER WRITTEN STATEMENT ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41680 WP No. 31347 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant seeking to set aside the Lok Adalat Order dated 10.2.2025 vide Annexure-A and consequently the decree dated 10.2.2025 in O.S. No.305/2019 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Sira vide Annexure-B. 3. It is the case of petitioner/defendant that her husband – T. Govindaraju is the only male son to his parents. The said Sri T. Govindaraju died on 6.9.1999 leaving behind the petitioner as the sole legal representative and the petitioner succeeded to the properties of her deceased husband and no one is entitled to any rights or share in the said properties. It is further case of petitioner that during the life time of T. Govindaraju, he sold 2 guntas out of 1 acre 21 ¾ guntas in Sy.No.56 of Kamagondanahalli village in favour of one Sri V.S. Nagarajappa for his legal necessity. The said V.S. Nagarajappa put up construction and is residing alongwith his family - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41680 WP No. 31347 of 2025 members in the said alienated portion. Further, T. Govindaraju sold different portions to different persons and retained 38 guntas in the said survey number. 4. It is further case of petitioner that Sri T. Govindaraju has four sisters and out of them, two sisters viz., Girija and Kamalamma filed O.S. No.3/2017 before the Civil Judge, Sira against the petitioner and other family members in respect of land bearing Sy.No.56 and new Sy.No.56/4 totally measuring 38 guntas out of 1 acre 21 ¾ guntas situated at Kamagondanahalli village, Gowdagere hobli, Sira taluk on the premise that the said property is ancestral property. The petitioner herein was arrayed as defendant no.4 in the said suit. The filing of the suit in O.S. No.3/2017 by the sisters of Sri T. Govindaraju is within the knowledge of Nagarajappa, the husband of the respondent herein. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that suppressing all the above facts, the wife of V.S. Nagarajappa, the respondent herein filed suit in O.S. No.305/2019 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira seeking the relief of specific performance against the petitioner on the basis - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41680 WP No. 31347 of 2025 of the created sale agreement dated 17.10.2019, which is a fraudulent one. The summons was ordered in the said suit and the date of hearing was fixed on 27.1.2020 and on the said date, the respondent and her husband made the petitioner to attend the Court. Infact the petitioner had appeared in the Court on the said day being under the impression that she would be appearing in O.S. No.3/2017 filed by sisters of her deceased husband for partition and taking undue advantage of innocence of the petitoner, the respondent and her husband made her to put her signature in the order sheet in O.S. No.305/2019 without her knowledge and without explaining the said proceedings and further got filed the compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC on the same day, which was also without her knowledge and notice. Infact, the petitioner was under the impression that she is signing the papers in the Court in O.S. No.3/2017 and signed the papers accordingly on the same day. But, she was never aware of creation of sale agreement dated 17.10.2019 and further she was not aware of filing the suit in O.S. No.305/2019. 6. It is contended that on the basis of the fraudulent compromise petition, respondent moved the Court in O.S. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41680 WP No. 31347 of 2025 No.305/2019, filed the same before the learned trial Judge suppressing the material facts by contending that the matter is settled and compromised between the parties and the trial Court accepted the compromise petition, posted the matter for orders on 8.2.2020 and passed orders thereafter on 10.2.2000 accepting the compromise. Even after the order dated 10.2.2000, the respondent and her husband were in cordial terms with the petitioner and have not disclosed the proceedings in O.S. No.305/2019 with regard to the alleged compromise petition. 7. It is contended by learned counsel that during May- 2025 the petitioner on noticing that the respondent and her husband were extending construction in Sy.No.38, petitioner alongwith her brother went to the Court and verified the Court records and came to know about filing of the compromise petition in O.S. No.305/2019. Thereafter, petitioner obtained certified copies of the entire records and realized that fraud has been played on her behind her back suppressing the facts and decree has been passed on the basis of the compromise petition. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41680 WP No. 31347 of 2025 the present petition praying to set aside the impugned order & decree dated 10.2.2020. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel that the impugned order and decree and the compromise petition in O.S. No.305/2019 are totally illegal, perverse, one sided and they are obtained by the respondent by playing fraud upon the petitioner during the course of conducting proceedings in O.S. No.3/2017 and the same require to be set aside. 9. It is further contended that the respondent has not paid single penny to the petitioner in respect of the alleged agreement dated 17.10.2019 or thereafter pursuant to the alleged compromise petition in O.S. No.305/2019 and hence learned counsel contends that the trial Court ought not to have accepted the compromise and the same requires to be nullified now in view of fraud having been played by the respondent alongwith her husband – Nagarajappa. 10. This Court does not find any need to issue notice to respondent as this Court intends to dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court, which passed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41680 WP No. 31347 of 2025 compromise decree to seek for appropriate relief for setting aside compromise decree. 11. Apparently, it is seen that the compromise petition is filed before the learned Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Sira. The order dated 10.2.2020 passed by the trial Judge in O.S. No.305/2020 is as under: "The plaintiff and defendants and their advocates present. They filed compromise petition U/o 23 Rule 3 of CPC. Perused the record and compromise petition of the both parties. The plaintiff has filed this suit for specific performance of contract in respect of the suit property and the parties have got settled the matter as per terms of the compromise petition. The defendant agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff by receiving Rs.1,00,000/- from plaintiff. The contents of the compromise petition read over to the both parties in the language known to them and they have agreed the terms of the compromise petition and execution of the same. Hence, the compromise petition of the parties is allowed and ordered to draw Decree as per the terms of the compromise petition." - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41680 WP No. 31347 of 2025 12. Thereafter, decree has also been drawn based on the order dated 10.2.2020. The compromise order and decree passed in O.S. NO.305/2019 is questioned in the present petition on the ground that fraud has been played on the petitioner. 13. It is well settled that when the petitioner questions the order and the decree passed on the basis of the compromise petition, it is for the petitioner to approach the very same Court which passed the compromise decree to seek for appropriate relief for setting aside the compromise decree by filing necessary application or petition. It is open to the petitioner to agitate and urge all grounds and take up all contentions that are urged before this Court, in the said Court rather than preferring this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. In the present case, it is also seen that the compromise petition is filed before the Court by the plaintiff and the defendants alongwith their respective advocates and based on the said compromise petition, the Court passed the order dated 10.12.2020 and the decree is drawn by the Court - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41680 WP No. 31347 of 2025 and it is not the Lok Adalat which passed any order on the compromise petition. Therefore, under the circumstances, it is necessary for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum and Court rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, I pass the following: O R D ER i) The petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner approach the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Sira and file necessary application or petition before the said Court to challenge the compromise decree. On such application being filed, the trial Judge shall accept it and hear the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. ii) It is open to the petitioner to take up and urge all grounds which are urged before this Court. iii) All contentions are kept open. iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. v) The petitioner is at liberty to move necessary application before the trial Court for any interim - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41680 WP No. 31347 of 2025 order which shall be considered by the learned trial Judge expeditiously in accordance with law. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26