- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33742 W.P. No.9723/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.9723/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. DODDATHAYAMMA AGED 62 YEARS W/O LATE JAVARAYIGOWDA @ RUDREGOWDA D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ BANDI JOGIGOWDANA SIDDEGOWDA R/AT ANKUSHAPURA VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 425. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH R, ADV., FOR SRI. PRABHAKARA L. SHETTY, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. K.S. JOGIGOWDA AGED 59 YEARS S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ BANDI JOGIGOWDANA SIDDEGOWDA R/AT MUSLIM BLOCK KOPPA VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 425. 2. SMT. K. DEEPIKA AGED 35 YEARS W/O SRI. PARTHA D/O LATE KRISHNA LECTURER Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33742 W.P. No.9723/2022 R/AT MALLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571425. 3. SMT. K. SHALINI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS W/O SRI. GIRISH D/O LATE KRISHNA (ENGINEER) R/AT KUVEMPUNAGARA GUBBI TOWN AND TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. 4. SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA AGED 52 YEARS W/O NINGEGOWDA @ BOODAPPA D/O SIDDEGOWDA @ BANDI JOGI GOWDANA SIDDEGOWDA R/AT THAGGAHALLI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 425. 5. SMT. H.L. LATHA AGED 54 YEARS W/O K.S. KRISHNA R/AT MUSLIM BLOCK KOPPA VILLAGE AND HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDY DISTRICT-571 425. 6. SMT. L. RUKMINI AGED 55 YEARS W/O SRIKANTAIAH R/AT CHIKKABALLI VILLAGE BASARALU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT. 7. SMT. H.L. SHAKUNTHALA W/O SRIKANTAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33742 W.P. No.9723/2022 AGED 50 YEARS R/AT HUNAGANAHALLI VILLAGE HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK-572123 TUMKUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANDA K, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. RAGHU N.R. ADV., FOR R4 SRI. VASANTH RAJ, ADV., FOR R5 R7 SERVED V/O/DTD:12.12.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS H/S V/O/DTD:25.09.2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 IS H/S V/O/DTD:25.06.2026, NOTICE TO R6 IS H/S) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, FROM THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MADDUR, IN MISC.NO.7 OF 2017 AND IN O.S.NO.52 OF 2011. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 03.03.2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MADDUR, ON IA NO.1 IN MISC.NO.7 OF 2017 AND IN MISC.NO.7 OF 2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC. 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33742 W.P. No.9723/2022 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 03.03.2022 passed in Misc.P.No.7/2017 (for short, ‘the Trial Court’) and the compromise decree dated 31.01.2013 passed by the Lok Adalat in O.S.No.52/2011. 2. Sri.Prakash R., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Prabhakar L.Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 had filed a suit against the petitioner as well as the other respondents for the relief of partition. In the said suit, the petitioner- defendant No.2 has contested the proceedings. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 colluded with each other in order to deprive the right of the defendant No.2-sister of the plaintiff. The respondent No.1 conveniently filed a memo seeking to withdraw the suit against the defendant No.2 and thereafter, filed a compromise petition indicating that there was an earlier partition in the year 1990. It is submitted that as per the said partition, they are in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33742 W.P. No.9723/2022 possession and enjoyment of the properties and as per the earlier partition, they divided the properties amongst themselves and the suit came to be decreed based on such fraudulent compromise petition. It is further submitted that the suit being a suit for partition, the defendant No.2 was also required to be treated as plaintiff and without allotting any share to the defendant No.2, a fraudulent compromise petition was filed by the plaintiff as well as the defendant No.1 by deleting defendant No.2. The Lok Adalat, without looking into any of these aspects, accepted the said compromise. In effect, the right of the defendant No.2 is denied. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Ananda K., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 supports the award of the Lok Adalat and submits that the plaintiff has chosen not to proceed against the defendant No.2 and has filed a memo seeking dismissal of the suit against the defendant No.2 which was accepted by the Trial Court and thereafter, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33742 W.P. No.9723/2022 they entered into compromise. He submits that it is the defendant No.2 who can file a separate suit agitating her right, if any, for partition. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent No.1 has filed a suit in O.S.No.52/2011 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Maddur, seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/5th share in all the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for mesne profit and other reliefs. In the said suit, the petitioner herein Smt.Doddathayamma was arrayed as defendant No.2. It is not in dispute between the parties that the defendant No.2, the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are siblings and are children of late Siddegowda which can be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33742 W.P. No.9723/2022 noticed from paragraph 2 of the plaint. The suit schedule properties are 22 in numbers. The defendant No.1 had filed a written statement in the said suit. Later, the plaintiff filed a memo dated 29.01.2013 stating that he will not press the suit against the defendant No.2 and sought prayer to dismiss the suit as not pressed against the defendant No.2. The Trial Court allowed the said memo and the suit against the defendant No.2-petitioner herein was dismissed and the cause title was amended. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff and some of the defendants have filed a compromise petition before the Court and thereafter, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat has accepted the compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) and the decree was drawn. 6. It is to be noticed that the petitioner, on incorrect advice, preferred an appeal challenging the compromise decree before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.36/2013 which was rightly rejected vide order - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33742 W.P. No.9723/2022 dated 04.02.2016. Thereafter, again on incorrect advice, the petitioner-plaintiff filed Misc.P.No.7/2017 seeking to set aside the Lok Adalat decree dated 31.01.2013 which was accompanied with I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Trial Court rejected the said application and consequently, dismissed the miscellaneous petition. It is to be noticed at the outset that the filing of the appeal as well as the miscellaneous petition by the petitioner, is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BHARGAVI CONSTRUCTION AND ANR. Vs. KOTHAKAPU MUTHYAM REDDY AND ORS.1 It is to be further noticed that the petitioner, explaining the aforesaid facts, later filed the present petition challenging the compromise decree dated 31.01.2013. The petitioner was defendant No.2 in a suit for partition. When a suit for partition is filed by one of the co-parceners of the property, the other defendants are also required to be considered as plaintiffs to a limited extent of determination of their share. In the 1 AIR 2017 SC 4428 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33742 W.P. No.9723/2022 said suit filed by the plaintiff for partition, the plaintiff as well as the defendant No.1 and some of the defendants conveniently withdrew the suit against one of the co- parceners and got the decree before the Lok Adalat. In my considered view, such an exercise by the plaintiff as well as some of the defendants is a fraudulent act done in order to deceive the legitimate share of the defendant No.2. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is that the defendant No.2 can always file a suit for partition. In my considered view, such a course is always available to the defendant No.2 but in view of the existence of the fraudulent compromise decree against the defendant No.2, it may lead to multiplicity of the proceedings by changing the revenue records based on such fraudulent decree and some of the parties to the compromise decree may alienate the property which would ultimately result in multiplicity of the litigation. Hence, I am of the considered view that the Lok Adalat ought to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33742 W.P. No.9723/2022 have verified as to whether there is equitable distribution of share between the co-sharers and as to why the suit against defendant No.2 is withdrawn. In the absence of any such verification by the Lok Adalat, merely accepting the compromise petition filed by the plaintiff and some of the defendants colluding with each other only with an object to deny the legitimate share of the defendant No.2, I am of the view that the decree of the Lok Adalat calls for interference as the same is obtained by fraud and non- disclosing of the material facts that the defendant No.2 is one of the co-parcener of the property, entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 03.03.2022 passed in Misc.P.No.7/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur, and the compromise - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33742 W.P. No.9723/2022 decree dated 31.01.2013 passed in O.S.No.52/2011 by the Lok Adalath, are set aside. The suit is restored to file. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to file the written statement in the said suit, if not filed, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40