- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18461 WP No. 10337 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.10337 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. G SURENDRA GUPTA S/O LATE GOVINDA SETTY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2. SMT. SHANTHALAKSHMI W/O SURENDRA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO.232, NEW NO.16-16/1, MOHIDDIN SAB ROAD ITTIGEGUDU, NAZARBAD MOHALLA MYSORE - 577 010 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. KAVITHA VINOD W/O LATE VINOD C, D/O G. SURENDRA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.190 GROUND FLOOR, 6TH CROSS MADEGOWDA CIRCLE, 2ND STAGE, HEBBALA, MYSORE - 570 017 …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18461 WP No. 10337 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING OF IMPUGNED FINAL DECREE DRAWN BY THE HON'BLE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSORE IN O.S NO.1558/2022 DATED 08/07/2023 (SIGNED ON 23.01.2024) VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This caption petition is filed assailing the compromise recorded by the Lokadalath between a daughter/respondent and petitioners/parents. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under: The respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S. No.1558/2022 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. The present petitioners, who were arrayed as defendants in the said suit, entered appearance through counsel and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18461 WP No. 10337 of 2026 contested the proceedings by filing their written statement. During the pendency of the suit, both parties, with a view to amicably resolve their inter se disputes, jointly sought reference of the matter to the Lok Adalat. 3. Pursuant to such reference, the parties appeared before the Lok Adalat and filed a joint compromise petition, which was duly signed by the plaintiff, defendants, and their respective learned counsel. The Lok Adalat, upon due verification of the terms and conditions set out in the compromise petition, and being satisfied that the settlement arrived at between the parties was lawful and voluntary, proceeded to accept the same. In terms of the compromise, the present petitioners, who are the parents, agreed to allot Schedule ‘D’ property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Accordingly, a decree came to be drawn in terms of the compromise on 08.07.2023, as reflected in Annexure-C. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18461 WP No. 10337 of 2026 4. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants calling in question the very status of the respondent/plaintiff by disputing her claim of being the adopted daughter of the petitioners. Various grounds are urged in the petition seeking to dislodge the compromise decree. 5. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that under the compromise decree, Schedule ‘D’ property has already been allotted to the respondent/plaintiff. The primary grievance now projected by the petitioners is that despite such allotment, the respondent is allegedly interfering with and encroaching upon Schedule ‘A’ to ‘C’ properties, which were retained by the petitioners under the compromise. 6. In the light of the aforesaid submission, it is evident that there is no substantial or bona fide challenge to the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.1558/2022 by the Lok Adalat. It is a settled principle that when - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18461 WP No. 10337 of 2026 parties to a partition suit voluntarily opt for settlement and seek reference to the Lok Adalat, and when such settlement culminates in a lawful compromise decree, the same attains finality and is to be accorded a higher degree of sanctity. This Court has consistently held that such compromise decrees cannot be lightly interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the absence of any cogent material indicating fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation vitiating the compromise. 7. In the present case, the allegations made by the petitioners are vague and omnibus in nature, and do not disclose any material particulars to demonstrate that the compromise decree was obtained by playing fraud or by any other vitiating circumstance. On the contrary, the grievance now sought to be projected relates to the alleged interference by the respondent with the properties retained by the petitioners under the compromise. Such a grievance, in the considered opinion of this Court, gives - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18461 WP No. 10337 of 2026 rise to a distinct and independent cause of action and cannot be a ground to unsettle a duly recorded compromise decree. 8. If indeed the respondent is interfering with the petitioners’ possession over Schedule ‘A’ to ‘C’ properties, it is always open for the petitioners to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent Civil Court seeking necessary reliefs in accordance with law. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 cannot be invoked to adjudicate such disputed questions of fact or to indirectly nullify a lawful compromise decree. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference. 10. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the petitioners from seeking appropriate relief before the competent Civil Court in respect of the alleged interference with the properties - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18461 WP No. 10337 of 2026 retained by them under the compromise decree, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23