- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34843 W.P. No.13083/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.13083/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: K.R. ANAND SON OF K.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.248, B 7TH MAIN ROAD MARUTHI LAYOUT, VASANTHA PURA BENGALURU- 560061. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SARAVANA S, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. SUBHADRA WIFE OF MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 2. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA .G SON OF LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT SHIVANAPURA COLONY DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE - 562162. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARJUN S, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 [ABSENT]) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34843 W.P. No.13083/2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 30.09.2021 AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO. 422/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NELAMANGALA BANGALORE RURAL AS PER ANNX- G AND H & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (i) “ISSUE a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.09.2021 and decree passed in O.S.No.422/2021 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Nelamangala Bangalore rural as per Annexure-G & H; and (ii) ISSUE any other incidental or consequential relief/s as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in aid of the main relief sought for, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Sri.Saravana S., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 had filed the suit in O.S.No.422/2021 against respondent No.2 for partition. In the said suit, the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34843 W.P. No.13083/2022 have filed a compromise petition and the same was placed before the Lok-adalath and the Lok-adalath ordered to draw the decree as per the compromise petition. It is submitted that the respondents, who were the plaintiff and defendant, have suppressed the material fact that the mother of the respondents - Smt.Ramakka, who is a grantee of the land, has sold the land under the registered sale deed dated 18.06.2007 and challenging the said sale deed, the respondents have initiated the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition Of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short, ‘the PTCL Act’) and suppressing all these facts, a decree of partition is obtained and based on such a fraudulent decree, the respondents have approached the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Bengaluru, (for short, ‘the Commission’) and the said Commission is insisting the police authorities to take action against the petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34843 W.P. No.13083/2022 herein, who is the owner and in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that the respondents, based on such fraudulent decree, are approaching the revenue authorities and seeking to change the revenue records and if such course is allowed, they would sell the said property to third parties and it would lead to further multiplicity of the proceedings. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the decree dated 30.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.422/2021 by the Lok-adalath. 3. There is no representation for the respondents. Even on 01.07.2026 there was no representation on behalf of the respondents. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent No.1-plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.422/2021 against the respondent No.2-defendant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34843 W.P. No.13083/2022 seeking the relief of partition. In the said suit, the plaintiff and defendant i.e., respondents herein, have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’). The said compromise petition was placed before the Lok-adalath. As could be seen from the order sheet of the Lok-adalath, the compromise petition was accepted in Lok-adalath and suit came to be decreed in terms of the compromise petition. As per the decree, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have divided east half portion 30 guntas of the land to respondent No.2 and west half portion 30 guntas to respondent No.1 in Sy.No.116 of Shivanapura Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North and the total extent of the said survey is 1 acre 20 guntas. 6. It is required to be noticed that the petitioner herein is the purchaser of the said property under the registered sale deed dated 18.06.2007 from Smt.Ramakka through the General Power of Attorney holder and the said Ramakka is none other than the mother of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34843 W.P. No.13083/2022 respondents herein. It is also required to be noticed that the respondents herein along with one Harish have initiated the proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru, and the said case is numbered as K.SC.ST/1/2016-17. Admittedly, the said proceedings are initiated seeking prayer to cancel and set aside the General Power of Attorney and three sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein as null and void, and the respondents in the said proceedings are none other than the petitioner herein - Sri Ananda and the GPA holder of Smt.Ramakka. It is required to be noticed that the respondents herein have conveniently suppressed the fact that the entire property granted in favour of Smt.Ramakka, the mother of the respondents, had been sold in favour of the petitioner herein vide registered sale date 18.06.2007 and they have filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act seeking to cancel the said GPA as well as the sale deeds and sought for possession. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34843 W.P. No.13083/2022 The suppression of the said facts before the trial Court/Lok-adalath and obtaining the decree of partition amounts to fraud on the Court. 7. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the respondents, on the strength of fraudulent decree, approached the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Bengaluru and sought certain reliefs and the said Commission is insisting the authorities to act on such decree. It is also required to be noticed that based on such a fraudulent decree obtained by the respondents, they are approaching the revenue authorities and insisting to effect the revenue records in their name and if such exercise is allowed to continue, then it would lead to further proceedings between the parties. 8. It is not in dispute that the decree in question though does not bind the petitioner herein as the petitioner is not a party to the said decree, however, it is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34843 W.P. No.13083/2022 required to be noticed that said decree is obtained by fraud, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to stand in the eyes of law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The compromise decree dated 30.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.422/2021 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is set aside. The suit in O.S.No.422/2021 is restored to its file. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35