- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:176 WP No. 106216 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.106216 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGAWWA W/O. LATE SIDDAPPA GADIVADDAR, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN, HERE WITH AADHAR CARD AS ANNEXURE-“D” HOUSE WIFE, R/O. KARAGAON VILLAGE-591226, CHIKKODI TALUK AND BELAGAVI DIST. 2. SRI. MARUTI S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA GADIVADDAR, AGE. 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST CUM BUSINESS, R/O. KARAGAON VILLAGE-591226, CHIKKODI TALUK AND BELAGAVI DIST. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SHWETA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KAMALAWWA W/O. LATE BHEEMAPPA GADIVADDAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. KARAGAON VILLAGE-591226, CHIKKODI TALUK, BELAGAVI DIST. 2. MR. VITTAL S/O. BHEEMAPPA GADIVADDAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KARAGAON VILLAGE-591226, CHIKKODI TALUK, BELAGAVI DIST. 3. MR. PRAMOD S/O. BHEEMAPPA GADIVADDAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KARAGAON VILLAGE-591226, CHIKKODI TALUK, BELAGAVI DIST. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:176 WP No. 106216 of 2025 4. SMT. RAJASHREE W/O. MAYAPPA GADIVADDAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. CHINCHALI VILLAGE-591317, RAYABAG TALUK, BELAGAVI DIST. 5. SMT. JAYASREE W/O. VIJAY GADIVADDAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. KANNAERI VILLAGE-416003, KOLHAPUR TALUKA AND DIST. 6. SMT. SHILPA W/O. AKASH NALAVADE, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. JAYASINGHAPUR VILLAGE-416101, SHIROL TALUK, KOLHAPUR DIST. 7. MR. THIMMANNA S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA GADIVADDAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. KARAGAON VILLAGE-591226, CHIKKODI TALUK, BELAGAVI DIST. 8. SMT. ANJANA W/O. MR. THIMMANNA GADIVADDAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. KARAGAON VILLAGE-591226, CHIKKODI TALUK, BELAGAVI DIST. 9. MR. VINAYAKA S/O. THIMMANNA GADIVADDAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O. KARAGAON VILLAGE-591226, CHIKKODI TALUK, BELAGAVI DIST. 10. MR. NAGAPPA GADIVADDAR S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA GADIVADDAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KARAGAON VILLAGE-591226, CHIKKODI TALUK, BELAGAVI DIST. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER’S UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHIKKODI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT IN OS NO.375/2023 BEFORE LOK ADALATH DATED 15-03-2024 AS A ANNEXURE-“A” AND “F” ETC.,. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:176 WP No. 106216 of 2025 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: “ a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed by learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge at Chikkodi, Belagavi District in OS No.375/2023 before Lok Adalat dated 15.3.2024 as Annexure-A and F, entire order sheet. b) Issue such other writ or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in OS No.375/2023, which is filed seeking partition. The parties have entered into compromise and basing on the compromise entered into between the parties in the Lok Adalat, the compromise was recorded and a decree was drawn on 15.3.2024. In the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking to set-aside the said compromise decree on the ground that respondents No.7 to 9 have willfully and deliberately violated the Lok Adalat decree dated 15.3.2024 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:176 WP No. 106216 of 2025 passed in OS No.375/2023. Further, the compromise was entered into as per the convenience of respondent Nos.7 to 9 and respondents No.2, 3, 7 and 10. It is also the ground that, as per the compromise decree, respondent Nos.7 to 9 have not provided the share/benefits from Shri Durgamma Stone Crusher and in the landed properties, morefully summarized in the compromise decree. It is also stated that the petitioners requested the respondents No.7 to 9 time and again to provide their share/benefits and to allot share in the landed properties fully summarized in the compromise, but they have procrastinated the matter on flimsy reasons. It is further stated that for the last five years, respondent Nos.7 to 9 have gained profit from Sri. Durgamma Stone Crusher and have nearly earned Rs.25 to 30 Crores without providing any legitimate shares to the other plaintiffs and defendants as well as the petitioners, and they have also suppressed all these material facts before the Lok Adalat. Further, respondent No.7 mutated the Undivided Hindu Joint Family properties in the name of the respondents No.8 and 9, which is highly illegal and not sustainable in law. It is the case that they have got equal share and in view of suppression of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:176 WP No. 106216 of 2025 material facts, the compromise decree requires to be set- aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner No.1 is an illiterate woman and as such, she has entered into compromise. On that ground, the compromise decree needs to be set-aside. It is submitted that immediately after the compromise, notice is given to all the respondents. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the material on record. Lok Adalat/compromise decree can be set-aside only when there is a fraud or coercion and only on limited grounds. The grounds that are urged before this Court are not the grounds on which the compromise decree can be set-aside. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are before this Court. Petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioner No.2 is the son. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner No.1 is an old woman and an illiterate one. However, it is not the case that the petitioner No.2 is uneducated, apart from that the grounds that are stated, in one Stone Crusher, they are - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:176 WP No. 106216 of 2025 entitled to some share, if that is so, what were they doing at the time of recording the compromise decree and why did they accept and signed the compromise memo, no plausible explanation is forthcoming. On these kinds of grounds, which are an afterthought, the Court cannot set-aside the compromise. If in this manner, the Court starts interfering in the compromise decree, then there is no sanctity to the same and there is no end to the litigation. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to set-aside the compromise decree recorded by the Lok Adalat. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii) All I.A.s in this writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI JTR CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28