- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32609 W.P. No.15247/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.15247/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. AKASH .M S/O MAHESH U.M. AGED 17 YEARS R/O. DHANDIMARAMMANA BEDDI GAJANURU, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 202. 2. ANKITHA .M D/O MAHESH U.M. AGED 16 YEARS R/O DHANDIMARAMMANA BEDDI GAJANURU, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 202. BOTH ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. ANNAPOORNA W/O MAHESH U.M. AGED 33 YEARS R/O DHANDIMARAMMANA BEEDI GAJANURU, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 202. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M.S. ADV.,) AND: 1. MANJUNATH U.M. S/O HYAPANNA Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32609 W.P. No.15247/2021 AGED 64 YEARS R/O ANALEKOPPA EXTENTION SAGAR CITY SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401. 2. MAHESH U.M. S/O MANJUNATH U.M. AGED 40 YEARS R/O ANALEKOPPA EXTENTION SAGAR CITY SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 3. UMESH U.M. S/O MANJUNATH U.M. AGED 38 YEARS R/O ANALEKOPPA EXTENTION SAGAR CITY SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 401. 4. JAGADEESHA U.M. S/O MANJUNATH U.M. AGED 32 YEARS R/O ANALEKOPPA EXTENTION SAGAR CITY SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 401. 5. PUSHPA W/O SIDDESH AGED 43 YEARS R/O SHIRVALA EXTENTION SAGAR CITY SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K, ADV., FOR R1, R3, R4 & R5 SRI. CHIDAMBARA G.S. ADV., FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-C, THE ORDER DTD 03.11.2011 IN O.S.37/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR. & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32609 W.P. No.15247/2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 03.11.2011 in OS.No.37/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagara (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. Sri.Harishkumar M.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioners filed a suit for partition on 02.09.2011. The suit summons were issued in the suit and the matter was adjourned to 22.10.2011, however, it was advanced to 18.10.2011. In the said suit, a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') was filed and the trial Court, while sitting in the same Court recorded the compromise and the matter was called before the Lok Adalat. As per the compromise, it was recorded that the father of the petitioners had received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32609 W.P. No.15247/2021 his 1/5th share and the suit came to be decreed accordingly. It is submitted that the entire process from the filing of the suit to its settlement before the Lok Adalat was within a span of less than two months. It is further submitted that the petitioners have filed suit in OS.No.80/2021 seeking relief of partition and in the said suit, they came to know about this fraudulent decree; hence, they have filed the present petition. It is also submitted that the petitioners and their mother had been residing separately from respondent No.2 due to marital dispute, and without their knowledge, respondent No.2 entered into the compromise in OS.No.37/2011. The said compromise is against the entitlement of the children and only to defeat their rights and such compromise was entered when they were minors. It is contended that the Presiding Officer sitting in the said Court cannot act as a conciliator in the Lok Adalat proceedings and such a decree is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of this - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32609 W.P. No.15247/2021 Court in the case of Smt.Akkubai v. Shri Venkatrao and Others1 and in the case of Smt.Renuka v. Sri.Ramanand and Another2. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Srikanth Patil K., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 submits that there are absolutely no pleadings in the plaint filed by the petitioners seeking partition with regard to the assertions made in the present petition. It is submitted that there are no averments or material particulars explaining as to when the petitioners and their mother left respondent No.2. In the absence of any such averment, the filing of this petition after one decade of drawing of the decree is impermissible. It is further submitted that the suit schedule property in OS.No.37/2011 bears very small extent and considering the value of said 1/5th share Rs.5,00,000/- is paid to respondent No.2, who was a 1 ILR 2014 KAR 2051 2 WP.No.103766/2018 disposed of on 31.03.2022 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32609 W.P. No.15247/2021 plaintiff in the said suit which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. Sri.Chidambara G. S., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 was the plaintiff in OS.No.37/2011 and by his consent only, the compromise petition was prepared. It is submitted that respondent No.2 had signed the said compromise petition, which was accepted before the Lok Adalat. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. The respondent No.2 filed OS.No.37/2011 against one Sri.Manjunath and others seeking relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a compromise and filed a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32609 W.P. No.15247/2021 compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, which is produced at Annexure-E to the writ petition. A perusal of the compromise petition indicates that the plaintiff in the suit has agreed to receive a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendants, which is equivalent to his 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties and the said compromise petition is duly signed by the plaintiff in the said suit as well as the defendants. 7. It is noticed that the plaintiff and the defendants filed a memo seeking to refer the matter to the Lok Adalat. Pursuant to the said memo, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, where the conciliator accepted the compromise petition and passed the order. The order of the Lok Adalat reads as under: “Case called before the Lok-Adalath. Plaintiff and Defendants present. Heard them. As per the advise of the Lok Adalath, the plaintiff has agreed to received Rs.5,00,000/- towards his 1/5th share out of schedule property. For receiving this amount he has also signed the compromise petitioner filed U/O.23 R.3 CPC along with the Defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff has given up his 1/5th share out of the schedule - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32609 W.P. No.15247/2021 property. He is also not liable for the liabilities and loans of the family. So all of the Plaintiff and Defendants have agreed for this settlement and to draw the decree accordingly. It is also established that this compromise is not the result of undue influence, coercion etc., Under such circumstances, this Adalath proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in accordance with the terms and conditions contemplated in the petition filed U/O.23 R.3 CPC with the consent of the parties. The plaintiff has received his 1/5th share by way of receiving Rs.5,00,000/- accordingly and given up his right in the schedule properties. The compromise petition is part and parcel of the compromise decree. Draw compromise decree accordingly.” 8. The perusal of the order passed by the Lok Adalat and compromise petition clearly indicates that the plaintiff has agreed to receive Rs.5,00,000/- towards the value of his 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. It further indicates that the plaintiff, who is respondent No.2 herein would not be liable for any family loans and all the loans are required to be cleared by the defendants. Be that as it may, the said compromise was duly accepted by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32609 W.P. No.15247/2021 the Lok Adalat in the presence of both the plaintiff and the defendants. 9. It is further to be noticed that respondent No.2, who was the plaintiff in OS.No.37/2011 has argued before this Court that he is a plaintiff, who had signed the compromise petition on his own volition and as per his 1/5th share, he received Rs.5,00,000/-. I am of the considered view that the contention of the petitioners that the said suit was collusive is liable to be rejected. This Court, in the case of Smt.Akkubai referred supra, has made observations at paragraph No.11 as under: “11. I really wonder, whether the Learned Judge who has entertained this matter was aware of the elementary aspects of judicial functioning and the Lok Adalath. A common order-sheet cannot be maintained by the Court as well as the Lok Adalath. A Court cannot be converted into a Lok Adalath. In the order-sheet maintained by the Court, a portion of the proceedings is referable to the Court proceedings and another portion refers to the proceedings of the Lok Adalath. The Conciliator has no place inside the Court. The very object of accepting this Lok Adalath as an alternative mode of resolution of dispute is that, all matters do not need adjudication. The matter which could be resolved by persuasion, negotiation and understanding should be taken out of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32609 W.P. No.15247/2021 adjudication process and should be resolved by means of Lok Adalath satisfactorily, so that the cases are disposed of expeditiously and the Courts will be saving the time of adjudicatory process, and they can utilize that time which is saved, in adjudicating the cases. If on the day the plaint is presented, the parties are also present before the Court, they are ready with the compromise petition and when they are filing an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, when they are admitting the terms of the compromise and execution of the terms and condition, then the Court before which it is presented, is the competent Court to record the compromise and dispose of the suit in terms of the compromise. The question of referring the said dispute to the Lok Adalath would not arise. If it is referred, it is a farce. If this is accepted and encouraged, both the judicial system and this alternative dispute resolution mechanism gets a bad name and would be subjected to redicule in the eyes of public. All persons who are indulging in this process would be doing great injustice and dis-service to the judicial system. They are not conscious of their action and its repercussions and the image of the Judiciary, which would create in the mind of the public. That is not the object with which neither Legal Services Authority Act of 1987 is passed by the Parliament providing for the institution of Lok Adalath nor Section 89 was introduced by the Parliament amending CPC. The essence of these provisions is neither understood by the learned Judge nor by the learned Counsels who are appearing for the parties.” 10. The aforesaid observations clearly indicate that the Presiding Officer of the Court is distinct from that of a conciliator in Lok Adalat proceedings and Court has - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32609 W.P. No.15247/2021 clarified the said aspect. In the case on hand, when the very plaintiff, who is respondent No.2 in the present petition has clearly taken a stand that on his own volition a compromise is entered and he has received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. In my considered view, the compromise decree before the Lok Adalat cannot be termed as a fraudulent decree and does not call for interference. 11. This Court, in the case of Smt.Renuka referred supra has laid down general guidelines to be followed before the Lok Adalat. The same is extracted below: “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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32609 W.P. No.15247/2021 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. (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. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32609 W.P. No.15247/2021 (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.” 12. The said enunciation of law laid down by this Court is vide Order dated 31.03.2022 and the instant decree before the Lok Adalat is dated 03.11.2011. It is also required to be noticed that the decree of 2011 is assailed before this Court under Article 227 on 16.08.2021, which is after more than one decade. Be that as it may, the grounds urged in the petition do not indicate that the decree in OS.No.37/2011 before the Lok Adalat is a fraudulent decree and collusive decree. In the absence of any such pleading and material on record, I am of the view that the said decree of Lok Adalat impugned cannot be annulled merely on the mere assertion of the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32609 W.P. No.15247/2021 petitioners that such a decree is entered to deprive the legitimate right of the petitioners. For the preceding analysis, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27