- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:596 WP No. 102573 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.102573 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KASTURI W/O. APPANNA HATTI, AGE 51 YEARS, OCC. H.H. WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAVINHONDA VILLAGE, TQ. RAIBAG, BELAGAVI-591317. 2. SMT. MALLAVVA W/O. MARUTI LAXMESHWAR, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC. H.H. WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAVINHONDA VILLAGE, TQ. RAIBAG, BELAGAVI-591317. 3. SMT. NILAVVA W/O. BASAPPA KADAKOL, AGE 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, MALLAYYA KATTI HATTIR JAMAKHANDI ROAD, KULHALLI VILLAGE, TQ. DIST. BAGALKOT-587311. - PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRIKANT S/O. BHIMAPPA WADEYAR, AGE 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAVINHONDA, NOW RESIDING AT HARUGERI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 317. 2. SIDDAPPA S/O. REVAPPA WADEYAR, AGE 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:596 WP No. 102573 of 2025 R/O. MAVINHONDA, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317. 3. AMASIDDA S/O. REVAPPA WADEYAR, AGE 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAVINHONDA, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAAVI-591317. 4. MARUTI S/O. REVAPPA WADEYAR, AGE 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAVINHONDA, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317. 5. AVVAKKA W/O. REVAPPA WADEYAR, AGE 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAVINHONDA, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317. 6. ADIVEPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA WADEYAR, AGE 75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAVINHONDA, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 317. 7. APPANNA BHIMAPPA WADEYAR, AGE 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAVINHONDA VILLAGE, TQ. RAIBAG, BELAGAVI-591317. 8. MALLAPPA S/O. ADIVEPPA WADEYAR, AGE 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAVINHOND, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 317. - RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMPROMISE DECREE BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAIBAG BEFORE LOK ADALATH IN O.S. NO. 49/2019 DATED 24.04.2019 AS AT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:596 WP No. 102573 of 2025 ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned compromise decree by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Raibag before Lok Adalath in O.S. No. 49/2019 dated 24.04.2019 as at Annexure-C, in the interest of justice and equity. ii. Issue any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case as stated above in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 8 are members of a Hindu Undivided Family. There is no partition between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 5 herein. The respondent’s No. 1, 6, 7 and 8 are in no way concerned with the suit schedule properties. It is stated that defendants No. 1 to 4 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:596 WP No. 102573 of 2025 namely the sons and wife and defendants No. 5 to 7 are the daughters of Revappa Bheemappa Wadeyar. The plaintiff and defendants No. 8, 9 and 10 are no way concerned with the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff has not included the ancestral property of Beemappa Wadeyar. The plaintiffs and defendants, without giving any share to the petitioners colluded with each other and obtained a decree. It is stated that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of Bheemappa Wadeyar. Without allotting share to the petitioner, they obtained decree illegally and arbitrarily and against the principles of natural justice. It is stated that when the property is a self-acquired property, the plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession, i.e. O.S. No. 49/2019 before the Senior Civil Judge at Raibag and got it compromised in the Lok Adalath dated 24.04.2019 without giving any share to the petitioners. It is stated that respondent No. 1 and respondents No. 2 to 8 have filed a compromise petition under Order No. XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. On 03.04.2019, without issuing notice to the defendants in the suit, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:596 WP No. 102573 of 2025 3. It is stated that when the matter was taken up at Lok Adalath, the parties were present. On conciliation, the parties submitted that they had settled the dispute and filed a compromise petition and joint memo. It is stated that respondents No.2 to 5 gave an assurance to the petitioner that they would pay the amount, but they have not paid any amount. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the compromise decree needs to be set aside on the ground that, as agreed upon, the respondent plaintiff has not paid the amount of Rs.50,000/- each to the petitioners. Further the self acquired properties are shown as joint family properties and the ancestral properties are not included in the partition. As such, the compromise decree needs to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip Mehta Vs. Rakesh Gupta and others arising out of SLP (C) No. 27806 of 2023. He relied on paragraph number 19 which reads thus: “19. It is made clear that we have not examined, and express no opinion upon, the rival contentions on Civil Appeal @ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:596 WP No. 102573 of 2025 SLP(C)No.27806 of 2023 25 fraud, collusion, limitation, title, or any other factual issue arising out of the compromise, the Lok Adalat award dated 14.05.2022, the consequent decree, the sale deed dated 22.07.2022 or the execution proceedings. All such questions, including the allegations of collusion and abuse of process, are left open to be considered by the High Court.” It is submitted that in several matters this Court has set aside the compromise decree and as such, in this case also, the compromise decree needs to be set aside. Hence, notice may be ordered to the respondent. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The petitioner wants the compromise decree to be set aside. It is not his case that he was not a signatory to the compromise decree or that he was not present before the Court during the compromise talks were going on or at the time of passing of the compromise decree. It is also not his case that there was any fraud or coercion on the part of the respondents. The two contentions raised are that, the properties which are self-acquired properties are included and the properties which are the ancestral properties are not included and as promised during the conciliation, the amounts - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:596 WP No. 102573 of 2025 are not paid to the petitioner. None of these grounds which are raised by the petitioner can be the grounds to set aside a compromise decree. The grounds on which a compromise decree can be set aside are Fraud, Misrepresentation, Coercion and Undue influence and the grounds that are raised before this Court cannot be the grounds on which this Court can set aside the compromise decree. 7. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner pertains to a case where the person who is questioning the compromise decree was not a party to the compromise proceedings. That is clear from paragraph No. 3.9 of the order that is passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein, according to the appellant, he became aware of the decree and the execution proceedings only when the police authorities visited the property for the purpose of executing the warrants of possession. The same ground is not available to a person who is a party to the compromise decree. Hence, none of the grounds raised by the petitioner are the grounds to set aside the compromise decree. If there is any violation on the part of the respondents in complying with the compromise decree, it is an executable - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:596 WP No. 102573 of 2025 decree and the petitioner is always at liberty to execute the same. Hence this court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy in case the terms of the compromise decree are not honoured. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI BVV CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47