- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO.21534 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M.R.KOTRESHAPPA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA.M., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O DOOR NO.463 (UPSTAIRS), NEW MASJID ROAD, CHOWKIPET, DAVANAGERE-577 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVANANDA.D.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJASHEKAR.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PRAMEELAMMA W/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA.M., AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 2. SRI.M.R.UMESH S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA.M, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 3. SRI. M.R.HALESH S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA.M., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 4. SRI. M.R.LINGARAJ S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA.M, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 5. SRI. M.R.ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA.M, - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 6. SRI.LAKSHMI D/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA.M, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 7. KUM. DEEPA D/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA.M, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 7 ARE R/O D.NO.463, NEW MASJIZ ROAD, CHICKPET, DAVANAGERE-577 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RUDRAPPA.P., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 8.10.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-L IN FDP NO.24/2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE ON IA FILED U/S 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, ANNEXURE-G AND ANOTHER IA FILED UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3(A) OF CPC ANNEXURE-J. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to challenge the judgment passed in FDP.No.24/2013 on 08.10.2021 by the I Additional Senior Civil - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 Judge and JMFC, Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order'). By the Impugned Order, multiple applications were decided by the learned Trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the challenge in the present petition by the petitioner is to the decision of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as well as a decision on application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 7/defendant Nos.1 to 7 under Order XXIII Rule 3(A) of the CPC, 1908. The remaining findings are not subject matter of challenge of the present petition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to the filing of a suit for partition and separate possession, the learned Trial Court, on 01.08.2013, passed a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of petitioner’s 1/8th share in the suit schedule property by meets and bounds. Thereafter, a petition was filed under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC, 1908 for passing of the final decree and delivery of possession of the petitioner’s 1/8th share. The description of the suit schedule properties as set out therein are extracted below: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 "Schedule A 1.Residential House property bearing corporation Door No.463, situated at 5th division, Chowkipet, New Masjid Road, Davangere measuring 12 X 105 feet having ground floor and 1st floor and bounded as under:- East : Property of Munir Sab; West : Property of Adhikari Channabasappa; North : Chowkipet Road; South : Property of Abu Sab S/o Malik Sab (Market value is Rs.70 lakhs) 2.Property situated at 4th Division, Davangere bearing Door No.1099, Avalakki Mill Property, and Mill demolished and not vacant, measuring 7600 Sq.feet and bounded as under :- East : Property of M.R.Kotresh and then conservancy; West : Property of Samad Sab S/o late Ibrahim Sab; North : Cement Road; South : Conservancy (Market value is Rs.250 lakhs) 3.Commercial property having black tiled roofing bearing Corporation Door No.72/1A, situated at 6th Division, Chowkipet Main Road, Davangere measuring 7 1/2 X 48 feet and bounded as under:- East : Property of Munir Sab; West : Property of M.R.Kotresh and Conservancy; North : Road; South : Conservancy. (Market value is Rs.40 lakhs) 4.Agriculturalland situated at Avaragere Village, Davangere Taluk bearing Re.Sy.No.324, measuring 18 Acres 23 Guntas out of which eastern portion dry land measuring 04 Acres 10 Guntas and bounded as under:- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 East : Land of C.Nagarajappa, K.B.Revanasiddappa, K.B.Shankarappa bearing Re.Sy.No.325; West : Land fallen to the share of Puttappa in the same Sy.No.; North : Land of HulagapparaThavappa; South : Land of LikngadahalliMaheshwarappa, AvaragereBanappa, Hanumanthappa and Siddajjara bearing Re.Sy.No.333. (Market value is Rs.25 lakhs)" 4. During the pendency of the case, a compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC, wherein it is stated that the parties compromised the matter by putting their signatures for an amicable compromise to obtain their share in the properties. 5. Pursuant thereto, two applications were filed by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 (Smt.Prameelamma), being an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as an application under Order XXIII Rule 3(A) read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to recall the compromise decree and the consent order and to condone the delay of 139 days in filing the application. 6. The learned Trial Court, after examining the objections filed by the petitioner/plaintiff and the compromise deed, came to a finding that the compromise between the parties is not a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 lawful one, because not all the properties were partitioned between the parties. The Court further found that there was no reason set out in the compromise petition as to why the female members of the family were not given any share in some properties. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that all parties appeared before the learned Trial Court and that the compromise petition was executed by all eight parties, including the applicant. He further submits that the order sheet is also signed by all the parties and thus, the compromise is lawful. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, on the other hand, submits that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is the mother of the remaining persons and is more than 75 years of age and an illiterate person. Ld. Counsel submits that since she is illiterate, she was not aware of the contents of the compromise deed. He further submits that, and respondent No.1/defendant No.1 was promised by her son that she would receive money in lieu of her share in the property, however, she has not received any amounts either. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 8.1 In addition, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that the decree passed by the learned Trial Court to define it above 01.08.2013, gave equal shares to all the parties. Thus, all the parties would have been entitled to equal distribution of the properties or sale proceeds in terms thereof. However, the same has not been done, and instead,the sons have taken a larger share of the suit schedule property. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants further seeks to rely upon paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the application filed wherein it is stated that, taking advantage of the illness of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 (Mother), the petitioner/plaintiff, being the kartha of the family, and suppressing the facts of the partition suit filed, advised the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 that he would look after all proceedings. However, he fraudulently and with a mala-fide intention to grab the properties misguided the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 and the other respondents. 10. As stated above, the learned Trial Court after examining the evidence on record found that, the compromise petition did not give any explanation as to why the shares were not allotted - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 to female members. It further found that, the details of sale etc. were not given in the compromise petition either. Thus, the learned Trial Court found that, the compromise petition which has been relied upon is unlawful. 11. At this stage, it is apposite to set out the compromise entered into between the parties: COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 1 OF CPC:- The parties to the above final decree arrive at an amicable compromise to obtain their share in the suit schedule properties due to the advice of the elders of the family as follows:- "Item No.1 of the suit schedule property: The house property wherein the parties are living will be divided in between the petitioner and the respondents as of now. The hind portion of the premises to an extent of 12 1/2th X 30 feet will be given to the petitioner. Remaining portion will be allotted to the joint share of all the other male members of the family. All the male members consented to the condition that they will not alienate the same to any third party till the final breath of their mother. Item No.2 of the suit schedule property: Vacant land of Avalakki mill area situated at behind Amarappana Thota, Anekonda Bed Tank, Anekonda will be sold to an outright price and the sale proceeds will be distributed in between all the male children's of the family. The female members of the family i.e., Smt.Lakshmamma will be given amount out of this amount to a lease hold and the other Kum.Deepa - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 will get Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) for her marriage performance in it. Item No.3 of the suit schedule property: The malige premises situate in Chowkipet will remain in the joint names of five male members of the suit including the petitioner as one of them. But the rent accrued from it is to be given to Smt.Prameelamma, the 1st respondent in the case, who is the mother of all other parties. Item No.4 of the suit schedule property: The lands situate in Hosachikkanahalli/Avaragere village, KasabaHobli, Davangere Taluk will also stand in the joint names of all the children of the family. The parties have agreed for the above compromise conditions and have given consent to the same by putting their specimen signature to the same unconditionally out of their wish and will as per law." [Emphasis Supplied] 12. An examination of the compromise deed shows that the compromise deed provides for an unequal distribution of the properties between the family members wherein the emphasis has been laid on the male family members. Item No.1 of the compromise deed sets out that the property primarily be divided amongst the male members. The only concession given to the female members is that they will not alienate the same until the demise of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 (the mother). Item No.2 sets out that the female members of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 family i.e., Smt.Lakshmamma will be given amount out of the said property to a lease hold basis and that Kum. Deepa will get Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs). Item No.2, in fact, does not even set out what amounts will be given to the female members. Item No.3 sets out that it will remain in the joint names of the male family members; however, some rent will be given to Smt. Prameelamma/the mother, while Item No.4 states that it will remain in the joint names of all the children of the family. 12.1 In addition, the compromise petition sets out is that the parties have arrived at an amicable compromise to obtain their share due to the advice of the elders. However, the elder and mother of the family does not get an equal share. 13. The record also reflects that compromise petition contains signatures of 7 persons and the thumb impression of one person - Prameelamma the petitioner/plaintiff. The order sheet of the learned Trial Court also contains signatures of the petitioner/plaintiff and the other respondents/defendants. However, so far as respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 concerned, only her thumb impression is there on the order sheet. 14. Undisputably, all the parties, namely the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent No.7/defendant No.7, were entitled to equal shares in the suit schedule property, which comprised Item No.1 of a house property, Item No.2 some vacant land, Item No.3 premises in Chowkipet, and Item No.4 land situated at Kasaba hobli. The compromise however reflects an unequal distribution of the suit schedule property with a larger share to/emphasis on the male family members. 15. Ordinarily, a family settlement or a family arrangement is not to be interfered with by the Courts. (see Kale and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others1). However, where a compromise is not lawful, the Court is bound to interfere with the same. The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has, in her application explained the circumstances in which the compromise was entered into. Although not happily worded, the Application sets out that her son is the kartha of the family and that he took advantage of her old age and 1 (1976) 3 SCC 119 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 illiteracy. It states that he did not advise her about the decree in the partition suit and that all parties were entitled to an equal share. It further states that her son also took advantage of her old age and illness to grab a larger share in the property. In addition, it sets out that the contents of the compromise petition was not correctly explained to her and thus her consent was obtained fraudulently by her son. The relevant extract of the application is set out below: "5. I submit that the respondent No.2 to 7 have been obliging the words of the petitioner as being the Kartha of the family. Due to the advantage of the family situation he had discussed with me for the purpose of namesake partition and gets the share of the suit schedule properties by all coparceners. He suppress the true facts of the partition suit, which was filed by him against I and other respondents and also he advised to me that he would look after all the Court proceedings. On my behalf and other respondents, Issue and other respondents kept in mum. But, he fraudulently played the role with me, with the mala- fide intension and to grab the family properties on his name and also to refuse the legitimate right of the family properties to the female children and also my share, he misguided to me and other respondents, that he engage the another counsel on my behalf and on behalf of other respondents for look-after the case. 6. I submit that on the instruction of the petitioner the advocates who were appointed by the petitioner for both the parties, have been colluded with the petitioner and hide the contents of the compromise petitioner, each of the schedule properties of the petition properly did not explained the contents of the compromise - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 petition, which was filed by both the parties in this case and also given the assurance to me and other respondents that all the properties kathas will be stand as joint name of all the coparceners, on the assuring words of the petitioner, I and other respondents have believed that he wouldn't tell the false to me and other respondents, and also the advocates of both the parties have given the instruction to me and other respondents, that all the properties will be allotted jointly on the petitioner and respondents names respectively, as such they got my and other respondents signature on the compromise petition, it was written in the English language, due to my illiteracy i could not able to read over and other respondents being the younger brothers and sisters had put their signature on the confidence of the petitioner wards, but he misguided the contents of the compromised petition. Hence I and other respondents put our signature without getting the knowledge of the contents of compromise petition and also on the instruction of petitioner I and other respondent given consent before the Court when the Hon'ble Court asked to us that have you agreed for the compromise petition, then I and other respondents said that yes we all agreed to the compromise petition with an intension that all the petition schedule properties will be allotted jointly to all the petitioner and respondents respectively." [Emphasis Supplied] 16. In addition, the respondent No.1 also sets out in her application that the female members did not get any share in Item No.1 to Item No.3 of the suit schedule property and even the amount that was stated of Rs.10,00,000/- or the rent that was stated in the compromise decree has not been paid to her. The relevant extract of paragraph No.7 is set out below; - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 "7) I submit that the petitioner obtains the compromise decree by this Hon'ble court with an intension that to grab the joint family properties & refused the legitimate right of the female members in the suit schedule properties and also put the litigation in the Joint family properties, it reveals from the pleading of the compromise petition. In the compromise decree specifically the shares of the respondents didn't allotted but the petitioner only got the share of the item no.1 suit schedule property, the female members didn't get their share at the Item No. 1 to 3 properties, at the item no.3 property put condition that after selling it the respondent no.7 will get the amount of Rs.10,000,00/- and in the same paragraph stated that the respondent no. 6 will get the amount for getting the lease amount and specifically not cleared how much amount has been allotted to them and also of the item no. 3 property Rent goes to me, but actually the rent of the same is collecting by the petitioner, as such the entire pleading of the compromise petition reflected that the respondents didn't got their share as per the preliminary decree that is 1/8th share in the petition schedule properties. Prima facie shown at the compromise decree, except petitioner the respondents didn't got their share specifically and also the respondent No.7 though she is unmarried, denied her legitimate right over the Item Nos.1 to 3 petition "A" schedule properties and also the respondent No.6 is residing with the other respondents at the item no.1 petition "A" schedule property, she got the diverse by her husband and also she is not having any source of income to lead her family life with her children, though the fact is there that the petitioner with intension to grab the share of female members he family and also other respondent no. 2 to 5 till today as being the unmarried persons and also the respondent no.2 to 4 have been attain the age of above 40 years, & respondent no. 5 & 7 are also crossed the age of marriage under such circumstances with forethought of the petitioner, if the properties allotted to the respondent no. 1 to 7 they may sell or execute any Instrument in favor of any body, If the suit "A" schedule properties in joint of petitioner & Respondents they will have no independent right over the petition properties. In future the petitioner and his successor may get right over those properties being the ancestral right." - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 [Emphasis Supplied] 17. Clearly the compromise deed did not benefit all the respondent especially the female family members. However, if they had voluntarily consented to the same, the same would not be interfered by the Court. However, in the circumstances where the respondent is illiterate and was not aware and has only put her thumb impression and later on when she has come to know that she has been defrauded by her own son, she has come to the Court, the learned Trial Court was correct in setting aside the compromise decree and recalling the order. 18. So far as the challenge to the Interlocutory Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned, the same does not survive, as the alleged delay of 139 days falls entirely within the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, which stands excluded for the purpose of limitation reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suo Moto writ petition in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation2 and it is held that during the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, provisions of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable. During 2 (2022) 3 SCC 117 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1269 WP No. 21534 of 2021 this period, limitation stood suspended by operation of law, and therefore the question of delay did not arise at all. The learned Trial Court, in allowing the application, merely acted in conformity with the law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution, and the order does not call for interference. 19. Given the aforegoing, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA