- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010358152022 NC: 2026:KHC:36420 WP No. 16004 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 16004 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. Y. SURENDRA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, S/O LATE PARVATHI SHETTY, 2. MR. MOHANDAS HEGDE AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/O LATE PARVATHI SHETTY 3. SMT.VISHALAKSHI P SHETTY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, D/O LATE PARVATHI SHETTY 4. SMT.SULOCHANA ALVA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, D/O LATE PARVATHI SHETTY 5. SMT. SUJATHA J. SHETTY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, D/O LATE SANJEEVI SHEDTHY 6. SRI. AMARNATH SHETTY AGED 65 YEARS, S/O LATE SANJEEVI SHEDTHY Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010358152022 NC: 2026:KHC:36420 WP No. 16004 of 2022 7. SRI. SHARATH KUMAR SHETTY (63 YEARS) S/O LATE SANJEEVI SHEDTHY ALL ARE RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD MUTHU MAHAL, KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK - 5762015 (NO.1 IS PERSONALLY AND REPRESENTS NO.2 TO 4 AS THEIR COMMON GPA HOLDER AND NO.7 IS PERSONALLY AND REPRESENTS NO.5 AND 6 AS THEIR COMMON GPA HOLDER) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K. BABU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE NAGAYYA SHETTY R/O THAGGARSE VILLAGE AND POST, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. 2. MRS. VELBAI KARSAN PATEL AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, W/O LATE KARSAN PATEL. 3. MRS.DAMAYANTHI HOSMUKH PATEL AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, D/O LATE KARSAN PATEL, 4. MRS.HAMSA PATEL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D/O LATE KARSAN PATEL, 5. MRS.VEENA GOVIND PATEL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010358152022 NC: 2026:KHC:36420 WP No. 16004 of 2022 D/O LATE KARSAN PATEL, 6. MRS.GEEETHA V. PATEL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D/O LATE KARSAN PATEL 7. MR.SANJAY K. PATEL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE KARSAN PATEL RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NANDANAVANA VILLAGE AND POST, NEAR IOC PETROL BUNK, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPROMISE PETITION DTD 13.08.2021 ENTERED IN O.S.NO.47/2021 UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 BETWEEN THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN BEFORE THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010358152022 NC: 2026:KHC:36420 WP No. 16004 of 2022 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: "a) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the Compromise Petition dated 13.08.2021 entered in O.S.No.47/2021 under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 between the respondents herein before the court of Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura (Annexure-‘A’); b) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the Compromise decree dated 14.08.2021 in O.S.No.47/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Court of Kundapura (Annexure-‘B’); c) Pass such other writ, order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case." 2. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners’ forefathers are the owners of the Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties referred to in the writ petition. Respondent No.1 had filed a suit in O.S.No.47/2021 against respondent Nos.2 to 7 seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 17.07.2020. The said suit - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010358152022 NC: 2026:KHC:36420 WP No. 16004 of 2022 came to be filed on 21.06.2021, and within a short span of time, the plaintiff and the defendants in the said suit colluded and filed a compromise petition. The Lok Adalath accepted the said compromise petition filed by the parties and decreed the suit. As per the compromise petition, the plaintiff had paid the balance amount of Rs.7,50,000/- to the defendants in cash. These circumstances create doubt regarding the bona fides of the parties to the suit. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioners had filed a suit in O.S.No.61/2021 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’ for short) against respondent Nos.2 to 7 seeking the relief of declaration and other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the defendants have filed their written statement; however, they have not disclosed the filing of the suit by respondent No.1 against the other respondents and the compromise petition was entered into therein, which is a fraud by the respondents. 4. It is also submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 7 claim to be the purchasers of the property from Sri Norbert Meneges and thereafter, as per the compromise, they have sold - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010358152022 NC: 2026:KHC:36420 WP No. 16004 of 2022 the property in favour of respondent No.1. It is contended that the application filed by Sri. Norbert Meneges for grant of land in Form No.7 was rejected by the Additional Land Tribunal, Kundapura and the said order has attained finality. Later, his legal representatives filed an application in Form No.7A, which also came to be rejected vide order dated 25.09.2009 passed by the Authorised Officer, Assistant Commissioner, Kundapura. Hence, it is contended that Sri Norbert Meneges was not the owner of the property referred to in Schedule ‘A’ to the writ petition, and therefore, the question of him selling the property in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 7 would not arise. Accordingly, the petitioners seek to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, Sri Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, supports the compromise decree of the Lok Adalath. It is submitted that respondent No.1 has specifically denied any right of the petitioners over the Schedule ‘A’ property and contends that the defendants in O.S.No.47/2021 were the owners, as they were the purchasers of the rights from the moolgenidar, and thereafter they have sold the property in favour of respondent No.1 by entering into - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010358152022 NC: 2026:KHC:36420 WP No. 16004 of 2022 a compromise in the suit, and the defendants had no objection to the compromise decree. It is also contended that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to pursue the pending suit, and that the scope of the interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the writ petition. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 7. Respondent No.1 had filed O.S.No.47/2021 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura seeking a decree for specific performance in respect of the Schedule ‘A’ property referred to in the plaint and seeking to enforce the agreement of sale dated 17.07.2020. The said suit was filed against respondent Nos.2 to 7 and came to be filed on 21.06.2021. Thereafter, the parties settled the dispute and filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition. The said compromise petition dated 13.08.2021 was - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010358152022 NC: 2026:KHC:36420 WP No. 16004 of 2022 placed before the Lok Adalath and the Lok Adalath accepted the same and directed to draw the decree accordingly. 8. A perusal of the compromise petition indicates that the plaintiff and the defendants have signed the compromise petition, and the same has been duly accepted by the Lok Adalath. Pursuant thereto, a decree has been drawn. It is also required to be noticed that the plaintiff and the defendants in O.S.No.47/2021 are not aggrieved by the said compromise decree. The petitioners, who are third parties to the said compromise, are assailing the decree on the ground that the defendants in O.S.No.47/2021 were not having right to enter into the agreement and that the petitioners are the owners of the said property. 9. It is also required to be noticed that the petitioners have instituted a suit in O.S.No.61/2021 against the very same defendants in O.S.No.47/2021, seeking a declaration of ownership in respect of Schedule ‘A’ property and other consequential reliefs. When the said suit is pending, in my considered view, the question of right and title over the Schedule ‘A’ property in the writ petition are required to be - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010358152022 NC: 2026:KHC:36420 WP No. 16004 of 2022 adjudicated by the trial Court in O.S.No.61/2021. Until the petitioners’ title is decided, they cannot contend that the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.47/2021 is fraudulent. 10. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and taking note of the fact that the scope of proceedings of this Court is very limited under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I am of the view that the petitioners have failed to establish a prima facie fraud in obtaining the decree before the Lok Adalath. Hence, no relief can be granted in the present writ petition. 11. It is needless to observe that the petitioners can raise all contentions in the pending suit in O.S.No.61/2021, including the contention that the decree in O.S.No.47/2021 is not binding on them or that the same has been obtained by fraud. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22