- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15922 WP No. 8134 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 8134 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. SHARADAMMA, W/O. LATE P. MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT MALLAPURA VILLAGE AND POST, HOLEHONNUR HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 413. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH K A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. MALLIKARJUNA, S/O. LATE P. MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT MALLAPURA VILLAGE AND POST, HOLEHONNUR HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 413. 2. SMT. KANTHAMMA, W/O. MR. MEGHARAJ, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT HOLALUR VILLAGE AND POST, HOLEHONNUR HOBLI, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15922 WP No. 8134 of 2026 SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 216. 3. MR. G. PARAMESHWARAPPA, S/O. LATE HALLIMALLAPPA @ MALLAPPA PATEL, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT MALLAPURA VILLAGE, MYDOLALU POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 413. 4. MR. ADARSHA, S/O. MR. MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, ARABILACHI POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 301. 5. SMT. MANJULA, FIRST W/O. MR. MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, ARABILACHI POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 301. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 04.02.2015 PASSED IN O.S NO. 130/1998 BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15922 WP No. 8134 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Captioned petition is filed by the legal representatives of defendant No.1 assailing the compromise decree dated 04.02.2015 passed in O.S.No.130/1998 before the Lok Adalat evidenced at Annexure-G. 2. Heard the petitioner's counsel and perused the plaint instituted in O.S.No.130/1998. This court has also meticulously examined the compromise decree recorded by the Lok Adalat in O.S.No.130/1998 pursuant to a joint compromise petition filed by plaintiffs and defendants. 3. It is not in dispute that under the compromise decree, the present petitioner – Sharadamma, came to be brought on record as legal representative of her deceased husband, P. Malleshappa, who was originally arrayed as defendant No.1 in the suit proceedings. Upon his demise, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15922 WP No. 8134 of 2026 petitioner stepped into his shoes and participated in the proceedings in her capacity as defendant No.1. 4. Records further disclose that a joint compromise petition came to be filed before the Lok Adalat. The said compromise petition bears the signatures of all the contesting parties, namely, the plaintiffs and the present petitioner, as well as their respective learned counsel. The compromise was thus entered into with the participation and consent of all parties concerned, and was duly verified before the Lok Adalat. 5. In terms of the said compromise, a decree came to be drawn, whereby specific properties were allotted to the respective parties. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, she was allotted an extent of 1 acre 2 guntas of areca garden situated in the eastern portion of Sy.No.6. In addition, she was conferred a right of enjoyment in respect of Item No.III of Schedule ‘A’ appended to the compromise petition, which consists of a mangalore-tiled residential house along with vacant space. However, the nature of right conferred upon the petitioner in respect of the said residential house was limited, inasmuch as she was granted only a right of residence - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15922 WP No. 8134 of 2026 and enjoyment during her lifetime, without any interference from the plaintiffs or any other persons claiming through them. 6. The present writ petition is filed calling in question the compromise decree recorded by the Lok Adalat in the year 2015. The principal ground urged by the petitioner is that the compromise was allegedly secured by playing fraud upon her. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that she was made to believe that the residential house described in Item No.III of Schedule ‘A’, bearing Grama Panchayath Assessment No.42, was being absolutely allotted to her share. However, according to her, the terms of the compromise, as recorded, indicate only a limited right of enjoyment during her lifetime, thereby depriving her of absolute ownership. On this premise, it is contended that the plaintiffs have played fraud upon her while entering into the compromise. 7. This Court has carefully examined the material on record. It is not in dispute that the compromise petition was signed by the petitioner herself as well as by her learned counsel. The compromise was recorded before the Lok Adalat as far back as in the year 2015. The petitioner was duly - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15922 WP No. 8134 of 2026 represented by an advocate and has consciously affixed her signature to the joint compromise petition. 8. It is a settled principle of law that a compromise decree, particularly one recorded before a Lok Adalat or a competent Civil Court, stands on a higher pedestal and carries a presumption of validity. Such a decree cannot be lightly interfered with, unless the party alleging fraud is able to substantiate the same by placing cogent and tangible material on record. Mere bald allegations or subsequent dissatisfaction with the terms of compromise would not constitute a valid ground to unsettle a concluded settlement. 9. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to place any credible material to demonstrate that fraud was played upon her at the time of entering into the compromise. On the contrary, the records indicate that she had voluntarily participated in the proceedings and consented to the terms of settlement. The challenge mounted after a lapse of more than a decade, i.e., from 2015 to 2026, clearly appears to be an afterthought and a feeble attempt to resile from a lawful and binding compromise. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15922 WP No. 8134 of 2026 10. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no justifiable grounds to interfere with the compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18