SRI.K.V.ANANTHAPADMANABHACHAR v. SRI.NIRANJAN MURTHY
WP/9974/2025 · 2026-02-16
S R Krishna Kumar
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14082 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14082 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6918 WP No. 9974 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9974 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.K.V.ANANTHAPADMANABHACHAR S/O SRI. VENKATADRACHAR AND SMT.LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS PRIEST OF SRI. ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMAYAJALAPALLI HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135
2. SRI. K.V. LAKSHMINARAYANACHAR S/O SRI. VENKATADRACHAR AND SMT.LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT KITTAGANUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, K.R. PURAM POST, BENGALURU-560 036. 3. SRI RAMAKRISHNA S/O SRI. VENKATADRACHAR AND SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT HENNURU BANDE, 3RD CROSS, KALYANA NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 043
SMT. MANJAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
4. SMT. RANJITHA.A D/O LATE MANJAMMA W/O SUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT K.H.B. COLONY, VITTALAPURA, MULABAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6918 WP No. 9974 of 2025
5. RAJIV. A S/O LATE MANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.236, NEAR S.S. SCHOOL -AND COLLEGE, KEMPAPURA, CHIKKABANAWARA, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BANGALORE 560 090. 6. SMT. R. SHANTHAMMA W/O R. RANGANATH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT SAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. 7. SMT. NARASAMMA W/O RAMANJAPPA (SECOND WIFE) AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT ATTIWATTA VILLAGE, J ADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. 8. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA S/O RAMANJAPPA AND SMT. NARASAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT KONDARAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 122
9. SMT. MANJAMMA W/O SUBBAIAH D/O RAMANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT DASAMANAPALLI VILLAGE, POGARAPALLI POST, KUPPAM TALUK, CHITTOOR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.-517425 …PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.NIRANJAN MURTHY S/O SRI VENKATADRACHAR
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6918 WP No. 9974 of 2025
AND SMT LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT KONDRAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 122. PRESENT RESIDING AT 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, PALASANDRA LAYOUT, KOLAR 5636101. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA SINCE DEAD
SMT. RUKKAMMA SINCE DEAD
SMT. ANANTHAMMA SINCE DEAD
2. MR. KALLAPPA
S/O UTTANALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 0 YEARS
R/AT SHIVANAPURA VILLAGE
NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 122. 3. SMT. R.SWETHA W/O M.A. RAJENDRA PRASAD D/O LATE RANGANATH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT CHAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, ARALERI POST, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130 …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.
BHASKAR GOWDA N M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI PUNITH.C, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O/DT: 06.11.2025, NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LOK-ADALATH JOINT COMPROMISE AND DECREE/ORDER DATED 14.12.2024, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAKOTE, IN OS NO. 34/2012, UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 OF CPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-G BY RESTORING THE SUIT IN OS
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6918 WP No. 9974 of 2025
NO. 34/2012, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAKOTE, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-
“ (a) To issue a writ of nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction thereby quashing the Lok- Adalath Joint Compromise and Decree/Order dated: 14.12.2024, passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Hosakote, in OS No.34/2012, under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, vide Annexure-‘G’ by restoring the suit in OS No.34/2012, on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Hosakote, by allowing the above petition. (b) To pass such other suitable order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 1st respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit in
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6918 WP No. 9974 of 2025
O.S.No.34/2012 against the petitioners and other defendants for partition and separate possession of his alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs.
The said suit culminated in a lok adalat award and compromise decree dated 14.12.2024 passed by the Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote. Subsequently, petitioners have preferred the present petition on the ground that the said compromise decree / lok adalat award was a result of fraud and misrepresentation and the same deserves to be set aside and as such, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that except making bald, vague, general and omnibus allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, necessary and requisite material particulars and details in this regard are conspicuously absent / missing from the facts and grounds urged by the petitioner; further, neither valid nor sufficient grounds have been made out or established or demonstrated by the petitioners for the purpose of assailing the impugned Lok Adalat award / compromise decree; on the other hand, the undisputed material on record
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6918 WP No. 9974 of 2025
clearly establishes that the petitioners along with their counsel had not only appeared before the Lok Adalat and admitted having entered into the compromise voluntarily and having signed the compromise memo, the petitioners have signed the order sheet before the Lok Adalat as well as before the trial court for the purpose of drawing up of compromise decree. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
SV/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2