- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6622-DB RFA No. 100124 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100124 OF 2025 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: SMT. YALLAVVA W/O. BASAPPA ARAVATAGI AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. #2194, ASHRYA COLONY, 7TH WARD, GANDHI NAGAR, DANDELI, TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-580114. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L.HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. ANASUYA W/O. HANUMANTAPPA KOLKAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KOLKAR ONI, K.B. PATTAYAL VILLAGE, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. NAGAVVA W/O. BALAPPA ANENPPANAVAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. USAKINA ONI, SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 3. SMT. SAVAKKA W/O. YALLAPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. TOLNAKA, JANNATH NAGAR, DHARWAD, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 4. SHRI. SHANKARAPPA Y/O. YALLAPPA DALAWAI, Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.25 10:37:49 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6622-DB RFA No. 100124 of 2025 AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. TOLNAKA, JANNATH NAGAR, DHARWAD, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD, DHARWAD-580004. 5. SMT. SHEKAVVA W/O. ADIVEPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. DESAR ONI, SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 6. SHRI. SADANAND S/O. ADIVEPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DESAR ONI, SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 7. SHRI. UMESH S/O. ADIVEPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DESAR ONI, SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 8. SHRI. BHIMAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KULKANI ONI, SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 9. SMT. BASAVVA W/O. MADIVALAPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KULKANI ONI, SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 10. SHRI. SHIVAPPA S/O. MADIVALAPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KULKANI ONI, SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 11. SMT. RENUKA D/O. MADIVALAPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KULKANI ONI, SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6622-DB RFA No. 100124 of 2025 TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 12. SHRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DESAR ONI, SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD, DHARWAD-580004. 13. SHRI. CHANNABASAPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: RTD INDIAN ARMY, R/O. NARENDRA, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 14. SHRI. ISHWAR S/O. GANGAPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. DESAR ONI, SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 15. SHRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O. HANUMANTAPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR HDMC WARD, LAKAMANAHALLI, RAJEEV GANDHI NAGAR, DHARWAD, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 16. SHRI. UMESH S/O. SRIDHAR NEKAR AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. #42, KALYANAHALLI, ANEKERI POST, DANDIGANAHALLI, HOBALI, CHANNARAYA PATTAN, HASANA -573116. SHRI. IRAPPA S/O. ADIVEPPA DALAWAI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s. 17. SMT. FAKKIRAMMA W/O. IRAPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580114. 18. SMT. NINGAVVA W/O. ASHOK SUNGAR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6622-DB RFA No. 100124 of 2025 R/O. PANCHAYAT STREET, KYARKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580114. 19. SMT. UDACHAVVA W/O. SHIVAPPA BARKI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HANGARAKI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580114. 20. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. BASAPPA CHINDI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HULKUNDAVAR STREET, KENGANOOR VILLAGE, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 21. SHRI. MAHADEVAPPA S/O. IRAPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 22. SHRI. FAKIRAPPA S/O. IRAPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANGADHAR NAGAR, BHAG II, ANIGOL VILLAGE, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 23. SHRI. MALLESHAPPA S/O. IRAPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 24. SHRI. HSSSANSAB S/O. SANNAPEERSAB BUKATAGI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 25. SMT. HUSSSAINBI W/O. HATELSAB CHADDANAVAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6622-DB RFA No. 100124 of 2025 R/O. SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 26. SHRI. RAMJASAB S/O. SANNAPEERSAB BUKATAGI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 27. SHRI. MUKTUMSAB S/O. SANNAPEERSAB BUKATAGI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 28. SMT. BIBIJAN W/O. DADAPEER DAVALANAVAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 29. SMT. KATUNABI W/O. KUTUBUDIN TALLUR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 30. SMT. SAINAJ W/O. AKKABARSAB TUMAKI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HOLTIKOTI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 31. SHRI. DADAPEER S/O. SANNAPEERSAB BUKATAGI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 32. SMT. MANTAJ W/O. KHALANDAR KUBYAL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6622-DB RFA No. 100124 of 2025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARUN L.NEELOPANT AND SMT. KAVITA S.JADHAV, ADVOCATES FOR C/R8 AND R23) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE SUIT/COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 16.07.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, DHARWAD IN O.S.NO. 98/2021 AND DECREED THE SUIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA 33. SHRI. RACHAYYA SWAMI SRI GURURACHAYYA SWAMI HALLIGERIMATH, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580004. 34. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER K.I.A.D.B, PLOT NO.33-A, LAKAMANAHALLI, PUNE-BENGALURU ROAD, DHARWAD-580004. 35. ANANDGOUDA S/O. FAKIRAGOUDA BADIYAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC:ADVOCATE, R/O. HANGARAKI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6622-DB RFA No. 100124 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) There is no representation in the captioned appeal. 2. Defendant No.12, who is party to the compromise decree drawn by the Court below in O.S. No.98/2021 has questioned the same by filing an appeal under Section 96 of CPC. 3. Counsel appearing for the respondents has cited a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) by LR. vs. Rajinder Singh and others1 to contend that the present appeal is not maintainable since it is against a consent decree. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the law rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. The Apex Court in an analogous case has clearly held that the aggrieved party has to approach the Court which has passed a consent decree and an appeal under Section 96 CPC is not maintainable. 1 AIR 2006 SC 2628 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6622-DB RFA No. 100124 of 2025 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. In Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) by LR. vs. Rajinder Singh and others, the Supreme Court has authoritatively clarified the legal position regarding the maintainability of an appeal against a consent decree. The Apex Court has unequivocally held that a decree passed on the basis of a compromise is not appealable under Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been observed that when a decree is passed on the basis of a lawful compromise, the appropriate and only remedy available to an aggrieved party is to challenge the validity of the compromise before the very court which recorded it, by laying foundational allegations such as fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion. The proper course is to approach the court of first instance which passed the consent decree and seek to have the compromise set aside. The statutory bar under Section 96(3) CPC specifically precludes the filing of an appeal against such a consent decree, thereby affirming that appellate remedy is not available in such cases. This principle squarely applies to the case at hand, and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6622-DB RFA No. 100124 of 2025 accordingly, the present appeal, being directed against a consent decree, is not maintainable in law. 6. Office has accordingly raised an objection in this regard. Upholding the office objection, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable reserving liberty to the appellants to avail the remedy in the manner known to law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RSH / Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10