- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2814 WP No. 675 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 675 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI GOPI S/O LATE T.JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. SRI. MURALI S/O LATE T.JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF STATES PHOTO STUDIO, PRITCHARD ROAD, NEXT TO NAHAR SWEETS, ROBERTSONPET, KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 113. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M B CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI DEVENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE L SAMPATHRAJ AGED 74 YEARS NO.1007/22, 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040. 2. SRI.S. UMESH KUMAR S/O LATE L.SAMPATHRAJ AGED 65 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2814 WP No. 675 of 2025 NO. 136, KIC BANK BUILDING, AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 053. 3. SRI S.PADAM KUMAR S/O LATE L.SAMPATHRAJ, AGED 60 YEARS NO.20, 13TH MAIN, 3RD FLOOR, FLAT NO.T.02 NANDHI PRISTINE, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 050. 4. SRI S. YESHWANTH KUMAR S/O LATE L.SHOBHAGMULL, AGED 57 YEARS, NO.638, 46TH A-CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. 5. SRI MANOJ KUMAR S/O LATE L.SOBHAGMULL, AGED 52 YEARS NO.130, 1ST MAIN ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 2ND STAGE, MAHALAKSMIPURAM LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 086. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK N V., & SRI SUJAYENDRA, ADVOCATES) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ON INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.03.2024 PASSED IN S.C.NO.14/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC, KGF VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND E BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI, ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2814 WP No. 675 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs: i) Quash the Judgment and Decree dated 16.03.2024 passed in S.C.No.14 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, KGF, vide Annexures-D & E, by issue of writ of certiorari. ii) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material will indicate that the respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit in S.C.No.14 of 2022 against the petitioners/defendants for ejectment/ eviction of the petitioners from the suit schedule immovable property and for other reliefs. 4. When the matter was posted before the Trial Court on 14.03.2024, both parties filed joint compromise petition, which was referred to the Lok-Adalath and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2814 WP No. 675 of 2025 culminated in the Lok-Adalath award dated 16.03.2024. Aggrieved by the impugned compromise decree and award of the Lok-Adalath, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned compromise decree and Lok-Adalath award are vitiated by fraud and the same deserves to be set aside. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments: i) ILR 2014 KAR 2051 Smt.Akkubai Vs. Sri.Vankatarao & Others ii) (2022)3 Kar.L.J. 709 Smt.Renuka Vs. Ramananda & Another iii) AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4428 Bhargavi Construction Vs. Kothakapu Muthaym Reddy & Others iv) AIR (2021)3 KCCR 2322 Padmavathi since dead by LRs Vs. Thirumala Rao & Others 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would invite my attention to the compromise petition filed by both parties who have undisputedly executed/signed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2814 WP No. 675 of 2025 the compromise petition out of their own free will and volition and the petitioner having admitted to have received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) in terms of the joint compromise petition is estopped from contending that fraud has been played upon them by the respondents. It is therefore submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract the compromise petition filed by the petitioners and defendants before the Trial Court, which reads as under: 1. The parties have compromises the matter at the advise and under well wishes and conciliators of Lok-Adhalath. 2. The Defendant concedes that he is a Tenant in possession of the Suit Schedule Property. 3. The Defendant here agreed to vacate and deliver possession of the suit schedule property within three month and plaintiff have agreed to a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to Defendant, that out of the said amount, the plaintiff has, this day paid of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2814 WP No. 675 of 2025 Plaintiff agree to pay the balance of Rs.7,50,000/- (Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) at the time of vacating and delivering possession of the suit schedule property to plaintiff. 4. The plaintiffs and defendants prays that this Suit may be decreed in terms of compromise petition and decree may be drawn accordingly justice and equity. 8. The said compromise petition filed by both sides before the Trial Court on 14.03.2024, and it was referred to the Lok-Adalath as hereunder: "Case is called out. Plaintiff and defendant are present. Counsel for the parties are also present The parties are identified by their respective counsel. Documents are filed in proof of identity of the parties. The parties submitted that there are chances of settlement. Matter is conciliated between parties and the parties agreed for settlement of the matter amicably. The parties filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of C.P.C. and prayed for decreeing the suit as per the compromise petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2814 WP No. 675 of 2025 Perused the compromise petition. The parties have stated in the compromise petition that the matter is settled between them in terms of compromise petition. The compromise petition is duly signed by the plaintiff and defendant so also their respective counsel. Enquired with the parties about the contents of compromise petition. The contents of the petition are read over and explained to the parties and that they agreed for the same. They also submitted that they are entering into compromise with free will and consent and without any coercion, undue influence, etc, Perused the compromise petition and found that the same is lawful and not against the public policy. Hence, satisfied with the compromise petition and accordingly, the same is accepted. Call before National Lok Adalath on 16.03.2024". 9. When the matter came up before the National Lok-Adalath on 16.03.2024, both parties were present and accepted the terms and conditions of the compromise and as such, the Lok-Adalath proceeded to pass the impugned award embodying the terms and conditions of the compromise. 10. It is relevant to state that neither valid nor sufficient grounds/cause has been made out by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2814 WP No. 675 of 2025 petitioners who have not produced or furnished any material particulars with regard to the alleged fraud said to have been committed by the respondents against the petitioners. In this context, it is pertinent to note that except stating that the amount agreed to be paid by the respondents to the petitioners was Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) and not Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as stated in the compromise petition, no other allegations or fraud are forthcoming in the entire memorandum of writ petition. Under these circumstances, having regard to the fact that the petitioners and respondents had voluntarily filed a compromise petition out of their own free will and volition, signed the compromise petition, which was also signed by their respective counsel, had appeared before the Trial Court, which referred the matter to the Lok-Adalath and thereafter, the petitioners and respondents having appeared before the Lok-Adalath and accepted the terms and conditions of the compromise pursuant to which the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2814 WP No. 675 of 2025 petitioners received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) from the respondents, I am of the considering opinion that the petitioners have not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned compromise decree or Lok-Adalath award. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the same were rendered in the facts and circumstances of the said case and in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the instant case as referred to hereinbefore, the said judgments would not be applicable to the case on hand. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14