- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41273 WP No. 9542 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 9542 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: G.V. SARVAMANGALAMMA W/O S. SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT # 30, 1ST B MAIN BEST COUNTY PHASE - 2 VIDYARANAYAPURA POST BENGALURU - 560 097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.R. RAGHAVENDRA, ADV., A/W SRI VINOD KUMAR S, ADV.) AND: 1. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. 2. NANDEESHA W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. 3. THAMMAIAH W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. 4. SHIVAMMA W/O LATE G. VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS. SINCE DEAD BY LR'S a. G.V. VASANTHA W/O N. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41273 WP No. 9542 of 2017 R/AT NO.171, SAI NAGAR PHASE 1 SAI TEMPLE ROAD, CHIKKABETTAHALLI VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 097. 5. VISHWANATH G.V S/O LATE G VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT # 30, "SATHYA NIVAS" 3RD CROSS, UTTANALLAPPA LAYOUT THINDLU VIDYARANYAPURA POST BENGALURU - 560 097. 6. UMESH G.V S/O LATE G VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 6 R/AT #1217/2 & 507/66 K.N. EXTENSION 6TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS YESHWANTHAPURA BENGALURU - 560 022. 7. SHIVAMMA W/O LATE JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 8. JAGADEESHA S/O LATE JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 9. UMESHA S/O LATE G VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. SHIVARUDRAIAH DEAD BY HIS LRS 10. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O LATE SHIVARUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS LR OF 7TH DEFENDANT. 11. RUDRESH S/O SHIVARUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS LR OF 7TH DEFENDANT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41273 WP No. 9542 of 2017 12. SWOBHAGYAMMA W/O LATE SADASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 13. a. b. c. MUDDURAJ S/O LATE SADASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. SINCE DEAD BY LR'S TEJASWINI W/O LATE MUDDURAJ MAJOR. NAKSHATRA D/O LATE MUDDURAJ MINOR. HEMANTH S/O LATE MUDDURAJ SINCE 13(b) AND (c) ARE MINOR REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER 13(a) TEJASWINI RESPONDENT NO.12, 13 (a) TO (c) ARE R/AT SADASHIVAIAH BUILDING OPP. TO HARSHA SAGAR BAKERY AND SWEETS TINDLU MAIN ROAD, THINDLU VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 097. 14. T. G. SIDDRAMAIAH S/O LATE GURUSIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3, 7 TO 11 & 14 ARE R/OF TYAGATURU VILLAGE NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 223. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV., FOR R-1, R-3, R-6, R-8, R-10, R-11 & R-14, R-2, R-5, R-7, R-9 & R-12 SERVED UNREPRESENTED; V/O/D 03.06.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-4(a & b), R-13 (a) IS H/S) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41273 WP No. 9542 of 2017 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD14.12.2016 PASSED BYTHE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC IN O.S.NO.266/2015 ON IA NO.V AND VI [ANENXURE-J] ORDER MADE ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3A AND ORDER I RULE 1-0 OF CPC RESPECTIVELY. 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. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 14.12.2016 passed on IA Nos.5 and 6 in OS No.266/2015 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. OS No.266/2015 was filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Gubbi, Tumakuru District with a prayer for partition and possession of plaintiffs' one fifth share in the suit schedule properties. A compromise decree was passed in the said suit on 28.06.2016. In the said suit, subsequently, IA Nos.5 was filed by the petitioner herein under Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC with a prayer to set-aside the compromise decree dated 28.06.2016 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41273 WP No. 9542 of 2017 and IA No.6 was filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead the petitioner as additional defendant in the said suit. The said applications were heard on 01.08.2016 itself and dismissed vide the order impugned. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that defendant No.1 in the suit is the mother of the petitioner and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are her brothers. The property in question is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants, and therefore, in view of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, petitioner being the daughter of defendant No.1 is entitled for one equal share in the suit schedule properties. The compromise was entered between the plaintiffs and defendants in the absence of petitioner and the only intention was to deprive the daughter a share in the property. 5. Perusal of the material would go to show that based on the compromise that was reported by the plaintiffs and defendants in OS No.266/2015, the suit was decreed in terms - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41273 WP No. 9542 of 2017 of the compromise petition on 28.06.2016 and a direction was issued to draw final decree in terms of the compromise petition. The petitioner claims to be the daughter of defendant No.1 and sister of defendant Nos.2 and 3. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma - (2019) 6 SCC 162, has held that after the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was brought into force with effect from 09.09.2005, daughters have an equal share along with the sons in the co- parcenary property. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sahoo and Others vs. Charulata Sahu and Others - (2023) 9 SCC 641, has observed that when law governing parties has been amended before the conclusion of the final decree proceedings, the same must be considered and appropriately applied by the Court. 8. In the case of Banwari Lal vs. Chando Devi and Another - (1993) 1 SCC 581, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a party challenging the compromise can file a petition - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41273 WP No. 9542 of 2017 under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC and in the event, it is found that compromise decree was illegal or void, then it becomes the duty of the Court to recall such decree passed on the basis of the compromise reported. 9. 9. In the case on hand, after the suit was decreed on 28.06.2016 based on the compromise petition which was filed by the plaintiffs and defendants, the petitioner on 01.08.2016 has filed IA Nos.5 and 6 before the Trial Court. On the date of filing of the application itself, the Trial Court heard the arguments on IA Nos.5 and 6 and thereafter, vide the order impugned has rejected the said applications. In my considered view, having regard to the change in law, which is pointed out by the petitioner in her application filed to set-aside the compromise decree dated 28.06.2016, the Trial Court ought to have issued notice on the applications to the parties in OS No.266/2015 and thereafter, passed an order on the merits of the applications. However, in the present case, on the date of filing of the application itself, the arguments on the applications were heard and the applications have been dismissed. In view of the settled position of law and also having regard to the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41273 WP No. 9542 of 2017 judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER (i) The writ petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 14.12.2016 passed on IA Nos.5 and 6 in OS No.266/2015 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District, is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court to consider the applications afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court in this petition. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37