- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9931 WP No. 100175 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100175 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANKRAMMA W/O. MANJAPPA KARIDYAMMANAVAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 2. SMT. SHANTAMMA W/O. NAGARAJ BENAKKANAVAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KUDAPALI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. 3. SMT. SUNITA W/O. UMESH, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BIDISANDRA AENNIGERI POST, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 4. SMT. SHRUTI W/O. MAHESHAPPA SORATUR, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. MANJAPPA S/O. HOILIBASAPPA Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9931 WP No. 100175 of 2024 KARIDYAVANNAVAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAVITA W/O. MAHESHAPPA MENASINAKAI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 2. SHANATANAGOUDA S/O. GIRIGOUDA LAKKANAGOUDAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIAKKAMAGANUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-58. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29-10-2021 PASSED IN CIVIL MISC. NO. 16/2018, ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RANEBENNUR AS PER ANNEXURE-F. B) ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9931 WP No. 100175 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: A) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29-10-2021 passed in Civil Misc. No. 16/2018, on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur as per Annexure-F. B) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioners had filed a suit in O.S. No. 37 of 2011, on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur, which culminated in a compromise between the parties, resulting in a decree dated 04.06.2013. Subsequently, in the year 2018, the petitioners filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 16 of 2018, seeking to set aside the compromise decree, alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and coercion in the execution of the compromise. An application under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9931 WP No. 100175 of 2024 Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed to condone the delay of 4 years, 6 months, and 4 days in filing the said petition. 3. The Trial Court, after due consideration, dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained, and thereby rejected the Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.16 of 2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the compromise was induced by fraud, as the land was allotted to a widow on the representation that she was living separately and required property for her maintenance. It is further submitted that the widow has since remarried and is now supported by her husband, making the allotment of land unjustified. 5. On hearing the learned counsel and perusing the records, it is evident that the allegation of fraud relates to events that occurred after the compromise - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9931 WP No. 100175 of 2024 decree was entered into. There is no material to show that the petitioners were subjected to fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation at the time of signing the compromise. The parties were duly represented by their respective counsel, and the compromise was entered into voluntarily, based on legal advice. The subsequent remarriage of the widow is not a condition forming part of the compromise terms and cannot constitute a ground to seek annulment of the compromise decree on the basis of fraud or coercion. There cannot be a restriction on the widow from remarrying, and as such, such a ground cannot be raised to challenge a valid compromise entered into. 6. In the absence of any cogent material to establish fraud or coercion at the relevant time of entering into the compromise, and in light of the unexplained delay, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9931 WP No. 100175 of 2024 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE VB/CT:PA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42