- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100040 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MALLANAGOUDA A/F. MARIGOUDA PATIL @ PUTTANAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 2. SRI, IRANAGOUDA S/O. HANUMAGOUDA PATIL @ PUTTANAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE BOTH ARE R/AT: DASANAKOPPA, TQ BYADAGI, DIST HAVERI. ..PETITIONERS (BY MISS. BASAVARAJESHWARI KENGAL ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. PUTTANAGOUDA S/O. RUDRAGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. SRI, SHIVANAGOUDA, S/O HANUMAGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 2A) SMT. GIRIJAWWA W/O. SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2B) SRI HANAMAGOUDA S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/AT: DASANAKOPPA. TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVER. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.09.24 10:41:49 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 2C) SMT. GEETA W/O. SURESH AKKIVALLI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT: HULLATTI, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 3. SRI, SHIVANAGOUDA S/O. HANUMAGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4. SRI. IRANAGOUDA S/O. HANUMAGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 5. SRI. SHEKARGOUDA S/O. HANUMAGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 6. SMT. NETRA W/O. NAGANGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK 7. SRI. MARIGOUDA S/O. NAGANGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 8. SRI. MALLANAGOUDA S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 9. SRI. HANUMGOUDA S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 10. SRI. SUBSHCHANDRA S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 11. SMT. JAYSHILAWWA W/O. SURESHGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK 12. KUMARI RENUKA D/O. SURESHGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 13. KUMARI RADHA D/O. SURESHGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK 14. SRI. MUKANGOUDA S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 15. SRI. JAGADISH S/O. NINGANAGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 16. SRI. BASANAGOUDA S/O. NINGANAGOUDA PATIL @ HOSAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE ALL ARE R/AT: DASANAKOPPA, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI. 17. SMT. CHINNAWWA W/O. SIDDAPPA MANER AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/AT: SATENHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. 18. SRI. MALLANAGOUDA A/F. BASANAGOUDA PATIL @ HITTALMANI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 19. SRI. HANUMGOUDA A/F. VEERANAGOUDA PATIL @ HITTALMANI AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 20. SRI. SHIVANAGOUDA S/O. SUJNAPPA PATIL @ HITTALMANI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 21. SRI. NINGANAGOUDA S/O SUJNAPPA PATIL @ HITTALMANI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 22. SRI. HANUMGOUDA S/O. VEERANAGOUDA PUTTANGOUDRA @ PATIL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, SRI. NAGANGOUD S/O. PUTTANAGOUDA PUTTANAGOUDRA @ PATIL SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 23. SMT. GOURAWWA W/O. CHANNBASANAGOUDA PUTTANAGOUDRA @ PATIL AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK 24. SRI. HANUMGOUDA S/O. CHANNBASANAGOUDA PUTTANAGOUDRA @ PATIL AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 25. SRI. ASHOK S/O. CHANNBASANAGOUDA PUTTANAGOUDRA @ PATIL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 26. SRI. MUTTANAGOUDA S/O. CHANNBASANAGOUDA PUTTANAGOUDRA @ PATIL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 27. SRI. HANUMGOUDA S/O. PUTTANANAGOUDA PUTTANAGOUDRA @ PATIL AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 28. SMT. IRAWWA W/O. SHIVANAGOUDA PUTTANAGOUDRA @ PATIL AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 29. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA PUTTANAGOUDRA @ PATIL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 30. SRI. FAKIRAGOUDA S/O. PUTTANANAGOUDA PUTTANAGOUDRA @ PATIL AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 31. SRI. IRANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. OCC: AGRICULTURE, 32. SRI. SHIVANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. OCC: AGRICULTURE ALL ARE R/AT: DASANAKOPPA, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 33. SMT. GOURAWWA W/O. VEERAPPA SURALIHALLI AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/AT: KAGINELLI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI. 34. SRI. BASAVANTAPPA S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA MATTIMANI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT: KUMMUR, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI. 35. SRI. VEERABASAPPA S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA MATTIMANI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT: KUMMUR, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI. 36. SRI. KALAPPA S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA MATTIMANI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT: KUMMUR, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI. 37. SMT. PREMA W/O. SANJEEVKUMAR JOGUL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/AT: KAGINELLI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 TO R11 AND R13 TO R21, NOTICE SERVED TO R22, R23, R24, R25, R26, R27, R28, R29, R30, R31, R32, R33, R34, R35, R36, R37; R2 AND R12-DECEASED; NOTICE SERVED TO R2(A) AND R2(B); R2(C)-SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS BYADAGI DATED 26.03.2021 IN O.S. NO.3/2021 ON I.A. NO. II BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners, who were defendant Nos.13 and 14 before the Trial Court, have preferred this petition challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadgi, on I.A. No.II filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, ‘the CPC’). 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 4. The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that respondent Nos.1 to 21 herein instituted a suit in O.S. No.3/2021 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadgi, seeking declaration that the decree passed in O.S. No.259/2020 dated 19.12.2020 is not binding on them and is not executable. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 5. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants, behind the back of the plaintiffs, entered into a compromise on 19.12.2020 in respect of the suit schedule properties, which is not binding on their share and is not executable. 6. It is further contended that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and are being cultivated jointly. Defendant No.13 instituted a suit in O.S.No.121/2003 seeking 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 26.12.2010, dismissed the suit. In the appeal, R.A.No.16/2010, the suit was decreed by judgment dated 02.01.2012, and the matter is presently pending for consideration in R.S.A. No.5555/2012. 7. The plaintiffs in O.S. No.121/2003, on the basis of the preliminary decree passed in R.A. No.16/2010, filed F.D.P. No.01/2012 for drawing up the final decree. It is further contended that defendants Nos.1 to 14, by suppressing the suit, appeal, and F.D.P. proceedings, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 instituted suit in O.S. No.259/2020 and entered into a compromise among themselves without arraying the proper and necessary parties. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit seeking a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on them. 8. Upon service of summons in the suit, the petitioners herein filed their written statement and also filed I.A. No.II under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs had neither properly strutted the prayer nor made a specific prayer, and that the suit was barred by law. The said application came to be rejected by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. 9. The respondents appeared through their counsel and filed objections, contending that respondent Nos.1 to 21 are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.3/2021, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadgi, and the petitioners - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 herein are defendant Nos.13 and 14 in the said suit. The suit has been filed seeking declaration that the compromise decree dated 19.12.2020 passed in O.S. No.259/2020 is not binding on them. 10. It is submitted that petitioner No.1, along with his mother, filed O.S. No.121/2003 for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. By judgment and decree dated 26.12.2010, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of petitioner No.1. Challenging the same, petitioner No.1 preferred R.A. No.16/2010, which was allowed, decreeing the suit and granting 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.3 in O.S. No.121/2003 filed R.S.A. No.5555/2012, which is still pending before this Court. 11. It is further submitted that, in the meantime, petitioner No.1 filed F.D.P. No.01/2012 for drawing up the final decree as per the judgment and decree in R.A. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 No.16/2010. While the said proceedings were pending, some of the defendants in O.S. No.121/2003, in collusion with petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein (who are shown as defendants), filed another suit O.S. No.259/2020, also for partition and separate possession of a 1/4th share in respect of the very same properties described in O.S. No.121/2003. The said suit was filed on 19.12.2020. 12. Summons in O.S. No.259/2020 were issued in the morning, and on the same day, at about 3:00 p.m., an application was moved. The case was taken on board, and a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3(A) of the CPC was filed by the plaintiffs and defendants in O.S.No.259/2020. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, and on the very same day, the suit was decreed in terms of the joint compromise petition filed by the parties. In that suit, the respondents herein were not made parties, and the decree was fraudulently obtained behind their back. Petitioners Nos.1 and 2, along with respondent Nos.22 to 37, obtained the decree in O.S. No.259/2020. Aggrieved by - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 the compromise decree dated 19.12.2020 which is alleged to be the result of fraud and the one obtained with collusion, respondent Nos.1 to 21 filed a separate suit in O.S. No.3/2021. 13. In view of the bar under Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the CPC, the challenge to the compromise decree dated 19.12.2020 passed in O.S. No.259/2020 on the ground of fraud and collusion, is maintainable only by way of a separate suit. 14. It is further stated that the petitioners have no locus standi to file I.A. under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, as the plaintiffs have the right to sue. On all these grounds, the respondents sought dismissal of the civil revision petition with exemplary costs. 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the material on record, the following points arise for consideration: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 i. Whether the petitioners have made out grounds to allow this revision petition? ii. What order or decree? 16. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for both sides. 17. On perusal of the impugned order, particularly paragraphs 10 to 14, the Trial Court has observed as under: “10. It is pertinent to state here that, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for the relief of declaration that, the compromise decree passed in OS No.259/2020 by way of compromise petition dtd: 19-12-2020 filed by the plaintiffs is not binding to the legitimate share of the plaintiffs over the suit properties and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs is that, the plaintiffs and defendants are the co- owners and are in constructive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and that, though the appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RSA No.5555/2012 in respect of the suit properties for the relief of partition and separate possession between the present plaintiffs and defendants, the defendant Nos. 1 to 14 by suppressing the said fact, filed a suit in OS No.259/2020 and entered into compromise by filing the compromise petition and accordingly, the suit was decreed in terms of the said compromise petition. It is no doubt true that, the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 present plaintiffs were not made as parties to the said OS No.259/2020 and under such circumstances, separate suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking for declaration and permanent injunction is maintainable since they are not parties to the said OS No.259/2010. If they are parties to the said suit and if the present plaintiffs and the defendants have filed compromise petition, then the plaintiffs ought to have approached the Hon'ble High Court, but in the instant case, the plaintiffs are not made as parties to the said proceedings and in catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts held that, where the plaintiffs have not parties to the compromise petition, under such circumstances, a separate suit is maintainable. It is pertinent to note here that, inorder to ascertain that, whether the plaintiffs are co-owners in constructive possession and enjoyment along with A the defendants, a full pledged trial is required and at this stage, it cannot be looked into the written statement averments. 11. It is well established principle of law is that, a fresh suit filed by the parties to the compromise decree is prohibited and barred by provisions of Order 23 Rule 3(A) of CPC and therefore bar under Order 23 Rule 3(A) of CPC operates against all parties to the compromise decree and it does not operate third person who is not a party to the compromise decree. Admittedly, here in the instant case, the contention of the defendant Nos. 13 and 14 that, suit of the plaintiffs is hit by Order 23 Rule 3(A) of CPC does not assume any significance for the reasons that, the present - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 plaintiffs are not the parties in OS No.259/2020 and hence, the said compromise decree does not binds on the present plaintiffs and they are entitled to file a separate suit and hence, the present suit is maintainable. 12. It is pertinent to note here that, while ascertaining the facts as to whether, the plaint discloses the cause of action, the court has to consider only the pleadings pleaded in the plaint not the contentions urged by the defendants in the written statement or application in question in support of the said contention. In this regard, it is relevant to this court to refer a decision reported in 2006 SAR (Civil)209 in Mayar (H.K.) Ltd., and others V/s. Owners & Parties Vessel M.V.Fortune Express and others, wherein it is held that "Plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made in the written-statement or in an application for rejection of the pliant, the court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out, whether it discloses a cause of action. 13. Further in a decision reported in 2015 SAR (Civil)385 in P.V. Gururaj Reddy and another V/s. P.Neeradha Reddy and others, wherein it is held that, "The condition precedent for exercise of power U/O VII Rule 11 of C.P.C are that, it is averments in the plaint that has to be read as a whole to find out whether, if discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law at the stage of exercising the power of Order VII Rule 11, the stand of the defendants in their written-statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 immaterial, in all other situations, the claims have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial, the claim of the plaintiff with regard to the knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action as pleaded will have to be accepted as correct". 14. 14. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions it is clear that, this court cannot look into neither averments made in the written-statement nor the contentions urged by the defendants in the application in question to find out whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law or not, if that is so, the averments made in the plaint certainly discloses that, this Court is having jurisdiction since declaration of rights is the exclusive jurisdiction of Civil Court, the question that whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration or not could be resolved only after full-fledged trial in the suit. However, merits cannot be dualed into at this stage, it is matter of trial, ultimately it is plaintiffs to prove their title to the suit property. From reading of the plaint, it discloses the cause of action to file the suit. Therefore, the defendants have not made out ground for the rejection of plaint at this stage. Hence in the said circumstances this court of the view that the application filed by the defendant Nos.13 & 14 is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I answer the Point No.1 in the Negative.” 18. After appreciating the material on record, the Trial Court has assigned proper and valid reasons for - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12088 CRP No. 100040 of 2023 rejecting I.A. No.II filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AC Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36