- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53587 WP No. 5501 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 5501 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: GURUMURTHY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE RAMANNA GORAGONDANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SOHANI HOLLA, ADV.,) AND: 1. G. THEERTHAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O GURUMURTHY GORAGONDANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101. 2. G. VANITHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS D/O GURUMURTHY SALUKATTE KANDIKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SATISH S.K, ADV., FOR SMT. JYOTHI S KEMPEGOWDA, ADV., FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 18.12.2021 (ANNX-B) PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TIPTUR IN OS 563/2021. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53587 WP No. 5501 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Defendant is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Lok Adalat in OS No.563/2021 and the order dated 11.01.2023 passed on an application filed under Section 151 of CPC in OS No.563/2021 by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent No.1 herein had filed OS No.563/2021 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Tiptur seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and also for mesne profits. Petitioner, who is the father of plaintiff was arrayed as defendant No.1 and his daughter was arrayed as defendant No.2 in the said suit. On 17.12.2021, a compromise petition was filed before the Trial Court in OS No.563/2021 and the Court had adjourned the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53587 WP No. 5501 of 2023 matter for orders on 18.12.2021. Thereafter, on 18.12.2021, case was called before the National Lok Adalat and based on the compromise petition, the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise petition. Petitioner had thereafter filed an application under Section 151 of CPC before the Trial Court in OS No.563/2021 to recall the order dated 18.12.2021 passed in OS No.563/2021 by the Lok Adalat and the said application was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 11.01.2023. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, defendant No.1, who is the father of plaintiff and defendant No.2, is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that major portion of the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of the petitioner. He submits that petitioner was not a signatory to the compromise petition which was filed in OS No.563/2021. The compromise petition which was prepared between the parties and the compromise petition which was filed in OS No.563/2021 are totally different. Son-in-law of the petitioner has signed the compromise petition on behalf of the petitioner, which has been acted upon by the Lok Adalat and suit has been - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53587 WP No. 5501 of 2023 decreed in terms of the said compromise petition. She submits that since the compromise petition was filed before the Court in OS No.563/2021, in view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Renuka vs. Sri. Ramanand and Another in WP No.103766/2018 disposed off on 31.03.2022, the matter could not have been referred to Lok Adalat for disposal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff has argued in support of the impugned orders. He submits that petitioner was very much aware of the contents of the compromise petition and he has signed the order sheet before the Lok Adalat on 18.12.2021 admitting the contents of the compromise petition. In terms of the compromise petition, for a considerable period of time, a sum of Rs.12,000/- was being deposited to the bank account of the petitioner by respondent No.1 herein. He submits that petitioner ought to have filed an application before the Trial Court to recall the compromise decree and he cannot approach this Court by filing a writ petition. He submits that in the absence of conclusive proof as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53587 WP No. 5501 of 2023 to the fraud allegedly played by respondents herein, the orders impugned cannot be set-aside in writ proceedings. 6. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivasappa and Others vs. M. Mallamma and Others - AIR 2022 SC 2381 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sushma and Others vs. Smt. Sunita in WP No.104723/2024 disposed off on 23.08.2024. 7. Perusal of the averments made in the plaint in OS No.563/2021 would go to show that there was an earlier partition between the parties to the suit under a registered Partition Deed dated 16.03.2015. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, under the said Partition Deed, the ancestral properties of the parties to the suit was divided and allotted to the share of plaintiff and his sister/defendant No.2. The first defendant was given cash amount of Rs.40,000/- each by the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and he had relinquished his rights in the ancestral properties in favour of his children. She has submitted that major portion of the properties in the present suit are all self-acquired properties of the petitioner. In the suit, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53587 WP No. 5501 of 2023 prayer made by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is for allotment of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. In the compromise petition based on which, the suit was disposed off by Lok Adalth, major portion of the immovable properties have been allotted to the share of the plaintiff and the remaining items of the suit schedule properties were allotted to defendant No.2. No property has been allotted whatsoever to the share of the petitioner herein. 8. In paragraph No.4 of the compromise petition, it is stated that plaintiff has to remit Rs.12,000/- per month to the bank account of the petitioner herein. In paragraph No.5, it is stated that the petitioner is required to maintain himself and his wife from the aforesaid amount of Rs.12,000/- per month which is to be deposited by the plaintiff. Except the aforesaid amount of Rs.12,000/- per month, nothing has been allotted to the petitioner. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not a signatory to the compromise petition dated 17.12.2021 which was filed in Court in OS No.563/2021. It appears that husband of defendant No.2 had signed the said compromise petition on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53587 WP No. 5501 of 2023 behalf of the petitioner. The order sheet of the Trial Court would go to show that on 17.12.2021, after the compromise petition dated 17.12.2021 was filed in the Open Court, the same was taken on record and the matter was adjourned for orders by 18.12.2021. The matter was not referred to Lok Adalat by the Court. However, on 18.12.2021, the case was taken up before the Lok Adalat and based on the compromise petition which was filed in the Court on 17.12.2021, Lok Adalat had disposed off the suit in terms of the compromise petition. 10. This Court in the case of Smt. Renuka (supra) having placed reliance on the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Akkubai vs. Shri Venkatrao and Others - ILR 2014 KAR 2051 has held that when a compromise is filed before the Court, it is for the Court to record the compromise and not to refer the matter to Lok Adalat. It is only if there is no settlement arrived at before the Court and the parties request for the matter to be referred to Lok Adalat to enable settlement, then in such event, the parties are to be referred to Lok Adalat and in the event a compromise being arrived before Lok Adalat, the same could be recorded by Lok Adalat. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53587 WP No. 5501 of 2023 11. In the present case, compromise petition was undisputedly filed in the Open Court in OS No.563/2021 on 17.12.2021. The Trial Court after receiving the said compromise petition had adjourned the matter to 18.12.2021 for orders. The matter was not referred to Lok Adalat by the Court and as per the order passed on 17.12.2021, no request was made by the parties to refer the matter to Lok Adalat. In spite of the same, the matter was taken up before the Lok Adalat on 18.12.2021 and without even noticing the fact that the petitioner was not even a signatory to the compromise petition, the Lok Adalat had disposed off the suit in terms of compromise petition. 12. In the application filed under Section 151 of CPC before the Trial Court with a prayer to recall the order dated 18.12.2021 passed in OS No.563/2021, petitioner has clearly stated that the compromise petition which was shown to him was not the compromise petition which was filed in the Open Court. If that is so, even if the petitioner has signed the order sheet before the Lok Adalat, it is of no consequence, when - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53587 WP No. 5501 of 2023 undisputedly, he has not signed the compromise petition based on which the suit was disposed off by the Lok Adalat. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivasappa (supra) has observed that the terms of compromise decree, cannot be avoided, unless the allegation of fraud was proved. In the said case, all the parties had signed the compromise petition and subsequently, it was alleged that there was a fraud played based on which the compromise petition was filed. The same is not the fact situation in the present case. 14. In the present case, undisputedly petitioner has not signed the compromise petition and without even his signature, Lok Adalat had acted upon the compromise petition and disposed off the suit on the basis of the compromise petition which is signed by the husband of defendant No.2 on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, prima facie it appears that fraud has been played by other parties to the suit who are the beneficiaries of the compromise petition which is acted upon by the Lok Adalat. The judgment in the case of Smt. Sushma (supra) has been passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53587 WP No. 5501 of 2023 the case of Sri. K. Srinivasappa (supra). Even in the said case, all the parties to the dispute had signed the compromise petition which was acted upon by the Lok Adalat for disposing off the suit in terms of the compromise petition. Under the circumstances, the judgment in the case of K. Srinivasappa and Smt. Sushma (supra) on which reliance has been placed by defendant No.1 in support of his arguments, cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is trite that judgments can be relied upon as precedents only if the same is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. 15. Insofar as the present case is concerned, compromise petition which is acted upon by Lok Adalat is not even signed by the petitioner herein. In addition to the same, the Trial Court after having received the compromise petition on 17.12.2021 had not even referred the matter to Lok Adalat and inspite of the same, the matter was taken up before Lok Adalat on 18.12.2021 and based on the compromise petition which is not even signed by the petitioner, the suit is disposed off in terms of the compromise petition. Further, in view of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53587 WP No. 5501 of 2023 judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Renuka (supra) since compromise petition was filed before the Court in OS No.563/2021, it was for the Court to dispose off the suit in terms of the compromise petition and the matter could not have been taken up before the Lok Adalat at all. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by Lok Adalath in OS No.563/2021 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:- 16. The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Lok Adalat in OS No.563/2021 is set-aside. Consequently, the prayer made in the application filed under Section 151 of CPC in OS No.536/2021 becomes superfluous and prayer made to set-aside the order dated 11.01.2023 passed on the application filed under Section 151 of CPC in OS No.563/2021 by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, is rendered infructuous. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44