- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15438 WP No. 8429 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 8429 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT SHANTHAMMA D/O. LATE CHINNAPPA, W/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT. DASARAPALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, V.KOTE TALUK, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517424. ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. SMT. JAYAMMA, D/O. LATE CHINNAPPA, W/O. SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT. BHOODIGERE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562165. 3. SMT. RAJAMMA, D/O. LATE CHINNAPPA, W/O. K.M. SHIVANANDHA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT. KODICHERUVU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK-563135, KOLAR DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI.D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHETHAN A C., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15438 WP No. 8429 of 2026 AND: 1. SMT. AMARAMMA, D/O. LATE RAMAPPA, W/O. SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT. KOTTUR VILLAGE, TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK- 563137, KOLAR DISTRICT. 2. SRI VENKATESHAPPA, S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 3. SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA, S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 4. SRI.NARASIMHAPPA, S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 R/AT. BYRANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK-563114, KOLAR DISTRICT. 5. SMT. SAROJAMMA, D/O. LATE CHINNAPPA, W/O. SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT. KOTTHUR VILLAGE, TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK-563137, KOLAR DISTRICT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15438 WP No. 8429 of 2026 6. SRI. MANJUNATHA, DEAF AND DUMB, S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY PROPOSED DEFENDANT NO.7, 7. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7 ARE R/AT BYRANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK- 563114, KOLAR DISTRICT. 8. SRI. K.R. SRINIVAS S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT. BYRANAYAKARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK-563114, KOLAR DISTRICT, NOW R/AT GULPET, KOLAR CITY- 563101, KOLAR DISTRICT. 9. THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, COURT COMPLEX, KGF- 563122, KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15438 WP No. 8429 of 2026 CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 19/03/2025 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 136/2023 BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT K.G.F ITINERATE AT BANGARPET, BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT (ANNEXURE- A)., AND ETC. 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 The captioned petition is by the plaintiffs assailing the compromise decree recorded by the Lok Adalat in O.S.No. 136/2023. 2. The sum and substance of the grounds urged by the petitioners/plaintiffs to assail the compromise decree is that they are illiterate persons and that the respondents/defendants have allegedly procured their left thumb impressions (LTMs) on the joint compromise petition by playing fraud. It is further contended that no consideration amount, as reflected in the compromise petition, has in fact been paid to them and that the entire compromise is a result of fraud and concoction. On these assertions, the petitioners seek to invoke the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15438 WP No. 8429 of 2026 extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.136/2023. 3. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at length and has carefully perused the material placed on record. 4. A perusal of the records, however, reveals a completely different factual matrix. It is evident that a joint compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed, duly signed by the plaintiffs, who are the present petitioners, as well as by the defendants. The proceedings further disclose that the Judicial Member and the Conciliator, upon interacting with the parties, have verified the correctness, voluntariness and genuineness of the compromise. On a specific query put to the parties, both the plaintiffs and the defendants, along with their respective learned counsel, have unequivocally stated that the dispute has been amicably - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15438 WP No. 8429 of 2026 settled and consented to the terms embodied in the compromise petition. 5. It is also borne out from the record that the present petitioners themselves had filed an advance application seeking early listing of the matter so as to facilitate reference to the Lok Adalat, which clearly indicates their active participation in the settlement process. The material further demonstrates that the parties have not only affixed their signatures/thumb impressions on the joint compromise petition but have also endorsed the order sheet maintained before the Judicial Member and the Conciliator. Upon being satisfied about the voluntariness of the settlement and after due interaction with the parties, the Lok Adalat has recorded the compromise and accordingly, a compromise decree has been drawn in terms thereof. 6. This Court, upon a meticulous and careful examination of the entire material on record, finds no - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15438 WP No. 8429 of 2026 substance in the allegations now sought to be urged by the petitioners. The records unmistakably disclose that the joint compromise petition was presented before the Lok Adalat bearing the signatures of all parties, including the present petitioners/plaintiffs, and the same was verified by the Judicial Member as well as the Conciliator upon due interaction with the parties. The proceedings further indicate that the parties, accompanied by their respective learned counsel, unequivocally admitted that the dispute had been amicably settled and consented to the terms embodied in the compromise petition. It is also significant that the matter itself was got advanced at the instance of the petitioners, thereby clearly demonstrating their active participation and willingness in arriving at the settlement. 7. It is a settled principle that a compromise recorded before the Lok Adalat, which is arrived at voluntarily and with the assistance of counsel, stands on a higher pedestal and carries with it a presumption of genuineness and finality. Such settlements are the very - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15438 WP No. 8429 of 2026 foundation of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and are intended to bring quietus to litigation. Interference with such compromise decrees, particularly in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is therefore warranted only in exceptional circumstances where there is clear, cogent and tangible material demonstrating fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or any vitiating circumstance of a serious nature. 8. In the present case, the bald and omnibus allegations that the petitioners are illiterate, that their left thumb impressions were obtained fraudulently, or that the agreed consideration of 11,50,000/- was not paid, are not supported by any credible or substantive material. The plea now urged appears to be a mere afterthought, intended to resile from a concluded settlement. If, as contended, the petitioners had not received the agreed amount, nothing prevented them from raising such objection at the time when the compromise was recorded or when the matter was taken up before the Lok Adalat. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15438 WP No. 8429 of 2026 Their silence at the relevant point of time, coupled with their admitted participation in the proceedings, militates against the present allegations. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sanctity attached to a voluntary settlement recorded before the Lok Adalat cannot be lightly unsettled on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations. No tangible material is placed on record to establish fraud or any vitiating circumstance warranting interference. Consequently, the challenge laid to the compromise decree is wholly devoid of merit and does not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12