- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44163 WP No. 26373 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 26373 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S HOSACHIGURU FARMS LLP REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SRI SRIRAM CHITLUR BASLASUBRAMANYAM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 304 3RD FLOOR, SHRAVANEE PREMIER BUILDING, ASHOKA PILLER ROAD JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ABHINAV R, ADV., FOR SRI SWAROOP S, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. PADMAVATHAMMA D/O LATE SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2. SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA W/O ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS (1) AND (2) R/AT PENAKONDA ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 110. 3. SMT. VINODAMMA D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44163 WP No. 26373 of 2023 GUDIBANE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101. 4. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE VENKTARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE GUDIBANE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101. 5. SRI VENKATESH W/O LATE VENKTARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE GUDIBANE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101. 6. SRI MANJUNATH W/O LATE VENKTARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 EARS R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE GUDIBANE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101. 7. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA W/O LATE VENKTARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE GUDIBANE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101. 8. VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O LATE SRI NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE GUDIBANE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101. 9. SRI RAMARATHNAMMA W/O LATE VENKTARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE GUDIBANE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT- 562 101. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44163 WP No. 26373 of 2023 10. SRI JULIAS ABRAHAM S/O SRI ABRAHAM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO 466, 5TH MAIN 2ND BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT KALYANA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 040. 11. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 12. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 13. SMT. VARALAKSHMI D/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. (11) TO (13) R/AT ANAKANOORU KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA 562 101. 14. SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 15. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. (14) AND (15) RA/T PAVAJENAHALLI SOMENAHALLI, HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK CHIKKABALLAURA DISTRICT - 562 101. 16. SMT. SUDHEELAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A PENUKONDA CITY AND TALUK ANATHAPURA, ANDHRAPRADESH - 515 110. 17. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44163 WP No. 26373 of 2023 R/A REDDIPETE, VIJEEPURA VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHANA CHANDRA P, ADV., FOR R-11 TO R-17; R-3 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED; V/O/D 27.10.2025, NOTICE TO R-1, R-2 & R-4 TO R-10 IS D/W) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2023 AT ANNEXURE-L PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR SITTING AT GUDIBANDE IN OS NO. 218/2019 REJECTING THE COMPROMISE PETITION DATED 22.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS. 1 -6 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAME AND DISPOSE THE SUIT AS SETTLED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Defendant no.8 is before this Court in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chikkaballapur, in O.S.No.218/2019 rejecting the compromise decree dated 22.04.2022 filed by the petitioner/defendant no.8 and respondent nos.1 to 6 who are plaintiffs in the said suit, and also to quash the order dated 20.01.2023 at Annexure-J passed by the Trial Court on an - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44163 WP No. 26373 of 2023 application filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC in O.S.No.218/2019. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. O.S.No.218/2019 is filed by respondent nos.1 to 3 herein seeking the relief of partition claiming 1/6th share in the suit schedule property and also for declaration that the sale deed dated 19.02.2005 executed in favour of defendant nos.7 & 8 is not binding on them. In the said suit, IA no.5 was filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC by some of the family members of the plaintiffs claiming that they have a share in the suit schedule property and for the purpose of adjudicating their rights, they are just and necessary parties to the suit. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 20.01.2023 at Annexure-J. It appears that the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant no.8 was settled and subsequently they had filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC and had requested the Trial Court to accept the said compromise petition dated 22.04.2022. The same was rejected by the Trial Court vide the order impugned dated 11.08.2023. Therefore, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44163 WP No. 26373 of 2023 defendant no.8 who is the purchaser of a portion of the suit schedule property is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits, that applicants in IA no.5 are not necessary parties to the suit and the Trial Court erred in allowing IA no.5. He submits that the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant no.8 inter se has been settled and to that extent the compromise petition should have been accepted and the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed on behalf of the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KATIKARA CHINTAMANI DORA VS GUNTREDDI ANNAMANAIDU - (1974)1 SCC 567, and submits that in view of the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, the Trial Court has erred in passing the order impugned. He submits that as per the terms of compromise, the plaintiffs do not intend to continue the suit, and therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the prayer made by defendant no.8 to accept the compromise petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44163 WP No. 26373 of 2023 5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that O.S.No.218/2019 is filed by the plaintiffs who are respondent nos.1 to 3 in this petition seeking the relief of partition claiming 1/6th share in the suit schedule property, and also to declare the sale deeds executed in favour of defendant nos.7 & 8 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. A consequential relief of permanent injunction is also sought in the suit. 6. It is trite that in a suit for partition, even the defendants are considered as plaintiffs and every one of the parties in the suit has a right to agitate their rights over the suit schedule property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO & ORS. V. CHARULATA SAHU & ORS - 2023 Live Law (SC) 262, has held that in a suit for partition, a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC which is not signed by all the parties to the suit cannot be acted upon. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand, wherein the Trial Court has rejected the prayer made by defendant no.8 to record the compromise between him and plaintiff nos.1 to 3, is rejected. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44163 WP No. 26373 of 2023 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, and submits that in Prasanta Kumar Sahoo's case supra, the said proviso has not been considered. The proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC would be applicable in a case where all the parties to the suit for partition have signed the compromise petition, and subsequently, there is a dispute between the parties who have signed the compromise, and in such an event, the court is required to decide the question raised by the party without granting any adjournment. But the same is not the situation in the present case. In the present case, defendant nos.1 to 6 have not at all signed the compromise petition, and therefore, the Trial Court was fully justified in passing the order dated 11wed.08.2023. The judgment in Katikara Chintamani Dora's case supra, has been passed in a case which arises out of a suit which is filed for eviction, and therefore, the same cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, since the suit in the present case is filed for partition and separate possession. 8. So far as the order passed on IA no.5 filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC is concerned, the Trial Court having taken into - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44163 WP No. 26373 of 2023 consideration that the applicants in IA no.5 who claim to be the members of the family have contended that they have a share in the suit schedule property, has allowed the said application. The Trial Court has observed that if the applicants in IA no.5 are not permitted to come on record, the same would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and it is under these circumstances, the Trial Court has allowed the application. Petitioner is only a purchaser of portion of the suit schedule property. I, therefore, do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order passed by the Trial Court. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK