- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9144 WP No. 104963 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 104963 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. KODEPPA S/O. BASALING GADDE, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIVAJI PARK TOTA, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317. 2. RAMA S/O. MAYAPPA GADDE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIVAJI PARK TOTA, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI BHARAMAPPA S/O. BHUJAPPA GADDE, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIVAJI PARK, RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317. 2. SHRI BHUJAPPA S/O. BASALING GADDE, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIVAJI PARK, RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317. 3. SHRI LAXMAN S/O. BHUJAPPA GADDE, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIVAJI PARK, RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317. 4. SMT YALLAVVA W/O. DUNDAPPA HEGADE, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK, R/O. KERUR, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591301. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9144 WP No. 104963 of 2025 5. SMT SIDDALINGAVVA W/O. RAJU HEGADE, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK, R/O. KERUR, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591301. 6. SMT MAHADEVI W/O. MAHADEV WANTAMURE, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK, R/O. SHIVAJI PARK, RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317. 7. SHRI BASALING S/O. BHUJAPPA GADDE, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIVAJI PARK, RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317. 8. SMT SHOBHA W/O. BASAPPA BEKKINAVAR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK, R/O. SINDIKURBET, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317. 9. SHRI SANTOSH S/O. BHUJAPPA GADDE, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIVAJI PARK, RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317. 10. SHIVAJI PARK CO-OPP FARMING SOCIETY CO.LIMITED, RAIBAG,TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANGAMESH GOLAPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M.B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R9; NOTICE TO R10 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01-04-2024 IN O.S.NO.522/2024, THE COMPROMISE DECREE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D ENTERED IN TO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS PASSED BY ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC RAIBAG IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9144 WP No. 104963 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) The petitioners are before this Court questioning the compromise decree dated 01.04.2025 passed in O.S.no.522/2024, entered between the parties in original suit filed in O.S.no.522/2024. Petitioners were not party to the original suit proceedings. Admittedly, the suit was instituted for partition and separate possession contending that there is a joint family ancestral property. The petitioners are the joint family members and brother of respondent No.2 herein. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the compromise decree is passed without notice to the petitioners and the same is illegal, arbitrary and collusive decree obtained by the plaintiffs and defendants in O.S.no.522/2024 without making petitioners as party. Therefore, they seek to set aside the compromise decree. 2. Per Contra, the learned counsel representing respondents No.2 to 9 vehemently contends that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9144 WP No. 104963 of 2025 present petition is not maintainable for the reason that petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy to either prefer an appeal against the compromise decree or by filing a suit seeking a declaration against the said decree. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents. 4. Without going into the merits of the matter, this petition can be disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Court seeking to set aside the compromise decree or by way of challenging the compromise decree before the appropriate forum. 5. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners are the members of joint family, the question that arises for consideration is, whether compromise decree passed is correct, and whether the petitioners are entitled to be heard as they have a share, which cannot be decided in this petition. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners be given liberty to approach either of the Court to challenge the compromise decree or to seek a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9144 WP No. 104963 of 2025 declaratory relief against the said compromise decree, which is in existence. Till such time, this Court deems it appropriate to show indulgence for a limited extent of reprieve. Accordingly, I pass the following : ORDER (i) Petition is disposed of. (ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum /Court to challenge the compromise decree in the manner known to law. (iii) The execution and implementation of the compromise decree is stayed for a limited period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16