- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32185 W.P. No.22501/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.22501/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PUSHPA W/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 2. SRI. M. PRUTHVIRAJ S/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 3. SRI. M. MADHUSUDHAN S/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT OPP RANGAPPA AND NARASAPPA BUILDING 4TH CROSS, B.B. ROAD VAPASANDRA CHIKKABALLAPUR CITY. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. SOMA SHEKAR S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 2. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32185 W.P. No.22501/2021 BOTH ARE R/AT PUTTATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK. 3. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YAERS R/AT PUTTATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK. (CLAIMING TO BE THE LR OF DECEASED NARASAMMA). 4. SRI. C.S. GURUMURTHY S/O LATE C.N. SANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT OPP RANGAPPA AND NARASAPPA BUILDING 4TH CROSS, B B ROAD VAPASANDRA CHIKKABALLAPUR CITY. 5. SMT. UMA G.M. [DELETED V.C.O. DTD:29.06.2026] …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVASAN T, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 SRI. V. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV., FOR R4 V/O/DTD:10.06.2026, NOTICE TO R3 IS H/S) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF COMPROMISE BEFORE LOK ADALATH DATED 15.09.2012 IN OS.NO.402/2007 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKABALLAPUR IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY VIDE ANNEXURE-F. TO QUASH THE COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 23.02.2013 MADE IN OS.NO.402/2007,THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32185 W.P. No.22501/2021 CHIKKABALLAPUR IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY VIDE ANNEXURE-G2 & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the award/decree dated 15.09.2012 in OS.No.402/2007 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapur (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.R.S.Ravi, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri.Akarsh Kumar Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with their mother have filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by the husband of the defendant on 02.12.1998. In the said suit, the defendant-Narasamma, filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint by specifically contending that the suit property had already been sold vide registered sale deed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32185 W.P. No.22501/2021 dated 09.10.2006. It is submitted that the alleged Special Power of Attorney (SPA) holder of the defendant played fraud upon the Court by filing an application seeking permission to defend the suit through the SPA and thereafter, the case was advanced. Plaintiffs and the SPA holder of the defendant jointly filed a compromise petition before the Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat accepted the said compromise without any enquiry or verifying the correctness of the alleged SPA. Consequently, the suit came to be decreed, which is under challenge in the present proceedings. It is further submitted that the original defendant-Smt.Narasamma, had categorically stated in her written statement that the suit property was not available for specific performance, as the same had already been alienated under the registered sale deed dated 09.10.2006. Despite this specific defense, the Lok Adalat accepted the compromise and decreed the suit. It is also submitted that the petitioners on incorrect advice filed miscellaneous petition challenging the decree, which came - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32185 W.P. No.22501/2021 to be dismissed with liberty to work out the remedies in accordance with law. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition as the plaintiffs and the SPA holder of the defendant has played fraud on the Court and obtained the decree. 3. Per contra, Sri.Srinivasan T., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the compromise decree and submits that the compromise award was passed in the year 2012, whereas the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2021 and on the ground of delay and latches, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. It is submitted that the agreement of sale in favour of the original plaintiff is of the year 1998, whereas the alleged sale agreement is of the year 2006. Therefore, the suit for specific performance is maintainable and the defendant, who has executed the SPA in favour of her agent, who duly appeared before the Lok Adalat, and the compromise entered into by such authorized - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32185 W.P. No.22501/2021 representative was lawful and binding. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the suit. 4. Sri.V.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 also opposes the petition by contending that respondent No.1/plaintiff No.2-Soma Shekar executed a registered gift deed dated 24.09.2020 in favour of respondent No.5. Now respondent No.5 being the owner, the sale deed obtained by respondent No.1 under the compromise is in consonance with the law. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicant submits that the petitioners have executed an agreement of sale dated 11.09.2006 in his favour with regard to the subject property. Hence, the impleading applicant is a necessary and proper party to the proceedings. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the application as well as the writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32185 W.P. No.22501/2021 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 7. Smt.Siddamma and others have filed a suit in OS.No.402/2007 against Smt.Narasamma seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 02.12.1998. In the said suit, the defendant- Smt.Narasamma filed a detailed written statement on 17.02.2008. In paragraph No.16 thereof, the defendant has specifically averred that the total extent of the suit schedule property measured 1 acre 33 guntas and that she had already sold 1 acre 13 guntas in favour of Sri.C.S.Guru Murthy S/o. late Sri.C.N.Sanjeevappa and Sri.C.S.Muniramaiah S/o. late Sri.C.N.Sanjeevappa through a registered sale deed dated 09.10.2006. In the said suit, an application in IA.No.4 was filed under Order III Rule 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking permission to the defendant - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32185 W.P. No.22501/2021 to appoint an agent/General Power of Attorney to appear on her behalf by virtue of SPA dated 17.08.2012 and the said application was allowed by the trial Court. The order sheet of the trial Court dated 15.09.2012 further indicates that the advocate for plaintiffs filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC along with an affidavit seeking advancement of the case from 06.10.2012 to 15.09.2012. 8. The records also indicate that on the very same day, the plaintiffs filed a memo requesting that the matter be referred to the Lok Adalat which was being held on 15.09.2012. The matter was accordingly placed before the Lok Adalat, where a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC was filed. A perusal of the compromise petition indicates that it bears the signatures of the plaintiffs and one Smt.Nagamma, as a defendant. However, at the end of the compromise petition it does not indicate that Smt.Nagamma is the SPA holder of original defendant-Smt.Narasamma. Only in paragraph - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32185 W.P. No.22501/2021 No.4 of the compromise petition, there is a reference of GPA. 9. Be that as it may, it is required to be noticed that the original defendant-Smt.Narasamma has categorically stated in paragraph No.16 of her written statement that the entire extent of the suit schedule property is measuring 1 acre 33 guntas and that the defendant had already sold 1 acre 13 guntas vide registered sale deed dated 09.10.2006. When a specific stand is taken by the defendant saying that the property is not available for the relief sought in the plaint in the said proceedings, the alleged SPA holder of original defendant subsequently entered into a compromise with the plaintiffs, and the Lok Adalat accepted the compromise without verifying the stand taken by the defendant in paragraph No.16 of her written statement. The conduct of the plaintiffs and the alleged SPA holder of the original defendant in suppressing the material averments contained in paragraph No.16 of the written statement and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32185 W.P. No.22501/2021 procuring a compromise decree amounts to a clear fraud upon the Court. It is also required to be noticed that on the date the compromise was entered into, the suit schedule property had already been sold under the registered sale deed dated 09.10.2006 by the defendant and was therefore not available for granting in favour of the plaintiffs under the compromise decree. Suppression of this material fact while obtaining a compromise decree clearly vitiates the proceedings on the ground of fraud. 10. Admittedly, the plaintiffs and the SPA holder of the defendant entered into compromise by suppressing the fact that the suit schedule property was not available as it was already sold by the defendant as stated in the written statement. The stand of the SPA holder in entering into compromise is contrary to the stand of the original defendant and the Lok Adalat ought to have looked into this aspect before accepting the compromise petition and it should have ascertained from the SPA holder as to whether the defendant has agreed for the said - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32185 W.P. No.22501/2021 compromise or not. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Renuka v. Sri.Ramanand and Another1 at paragraph No.20 held as under: “20. This Court has also been coming across several matters relating to such compromise before the Lok-Adalat which are challenged by way of writ petitions. Hence, I also deem it fit to issue general directions in respect of such matters which are referred to Lok-Adalat and compromise recorded as under: (i) When a compromise is filed before the Court in terms of the decision in Smt.Akkubai vs. Shri Venkatrao and Others [ILR 2014 KAR 2051] (supra) it is for the Court to record the compromise and not refer the matter to the Lok-Adalat. (ii) It is only if there is no settlement arrived at before the Court and the parties request for the matter to be referred to Lok-Adalat to enable a settlement then in such event the parties are to be referred to the Lok-Adalat and in the event of a compromise being arrived at before the Lok-Adalat, the same could be recorded by the Lok-Adalat. (iii) When the matter is referred to Lok- Adalat, separate order sheets would have to be opened and maintained by the said Lok- Adalat and the order sheet of the Court in the suit cannot be used by the Lok-Adalat. 1 WP.No.103766/2018 disposed of on 31.03.2022 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32185 W.P. No.22501/2021 (iv) The trial Court and or the Lok-Adalat while recording compromise is required to ascertain if the parties are present personally as also to ascertain and verify their identities by production of suitable documentary proof. (v) In the event of a power of attorney appearing, it would be the bounden duty of the Court or the Lok-Adalat to ascertain if the concerned party has been served with notice. (vi) The Court as also the Lok-Adalat would always have to be suspicious if the party were to enter appearance even before service of notice which is a red flag that there is something that is fishy in the matter. (vii) When recording a compromise being entered into by a power of attorney, the original of the power of attorney is required to be examined by the Court and the Lok-Adalat and necessary endorsement made in the order to that effect and the original power of attorney returned to the parties. (viii) As far as possible the trial Court and or the Lok-Adalat to secure the presence of the party and obtain signature of such party rather than the power of attorney. (ix) The Trial Courts shall ensure that proper and acceptable proof of identity of the parties to proceedings as mandated by the Government for various purposes (such as Aadhar Card, Driving Licence, Passport Copy, Election Identity card, etc.,) are obtained as a matter of rule.” - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32185 W.P. No.22501/2021 11. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down in the aforesaid decision, I am of considered view that the plaintiffs and SPA holder of the defendant have suppressed the relevant fact before the Lok Adalat and got the decree which is clear fraud and the same is required to be interfered with. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs is that there is a delay in approaching this Court and filing a writ petition. In my considered view, once the plaintiffs are able to establish that the compromise decree has been obtained by fraud and by suppressing material facts before the Lok Adalat, the question of laches in filing the writ petition should not come in the way of entertaining the writ petition. Fraud vitiates the award of the Lok Adalat as well as consequent acts of the party. Hence, the contention with regard to the delay and latches is rejected. 12. Respondent No.5 claims to be a donee under plaintiff No.2, who has gifted the schedule property in her favour. The acquisition of right by the plaintiffs itself is - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32185 W.P. No.22501/2021 being interfered with in this petition, the alleged gift in favour of respondent No.5 has no sanctity in the eyes of law and she would not get better title than what plaintiff No.2 has. 13. Insofar as the impleading applicant is concerned, in my considered view, the impleading applicant has to work out her remedies in accordance with law as the said agreement between the impleading applicant and the writ petitioners has nothing to do with the lis. The impleading application is disposed of. 14. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned compromise decree/award of the Lok Adalat dated 15.09.2012 in OS.No.402/2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapur - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32185 W.P. No.22501/2021 is hereby set aside. Consequently, compromise petition filed by the plaintiffs and the SPA holder of the defendant is rejected. iii) Consequently, sale deed dated 09.07.2018 executed by the Court Commissioner in favour of respondent No.1 is hereby set aside and gift deed dated 24.09.2020 executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.5 is hereby set aside. iv) Suit in O.S.No.402/2007 is restored on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge And CJM, Chikkaballapura. The said Court shall dispose of the suit in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19