- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2091 WP No. 100982 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 100982 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. ALLAPPA HALAPPA GANESHWADI, THE PRESIDENT CHAKRAVARTI DANESHWAR ABHIVRUDDI SEVA SANGH, SAVADI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORK AND AGRIL. R/O: ARABHAVI, (SATTIGERI TOTA)-591218, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.VIRUPAXAYYA DANAYYA MATHAD, AGED: ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANDIGANI-587311, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. SRI.KADAYYA DANAYYA MATHAD AGED: ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:BANDIGANI-587311, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST:BAGALKOT. 3. SMT.IRAVVA, W/O.DANAYYA MATHAD AGED: ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:BANDIGANI-587311, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST:BAGALKOT. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2026.02.19 12:32:54 +0000 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2091 WP No. 100982 of 2026 4. SRI.BASAYYA DANAYYA MATHAD AGED: ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:BANDIGANI-587311, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST:BAGALKOT. 5. SRI.MALLAYYA DANAYYA MATHAD AGED: ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:BANDIGANI-587311, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST:BAGALKOT. 6. SRI.SOMAYYA DANAYYA MATHAD AGED: ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:BANDIGANI-587311, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST:BAGALKOT. 7. SRI.SHIVAKUMAR DANAYYA MATHAD AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:BANDIGANI-587311, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST:BAGALKOT. 8. SRI.NANDAKESHWAR DANAYYA MATHAD AGED: ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:BANDIGANI-587311, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST:BAGALKOT. 9. SMT.BHAGYASHREE W/O.CHIKKAYYA MATHAD AGED: ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O:BANDIGANI-587311, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST:BAGALKOT. 10. SMT.DANESHWARI W/O.CHIKKAYYA MATHAD AGED: ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:BANDIGANI-587311, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST:BAGALKOT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2091 WP No. 100982 of 2026 11. KUMAR SHIVAPADMANABH S/O.CHIKKAYYA MATHAD AGED: ABOUT 10 YEARS, OCC: MINOR, BY HIS MINOR GUARDIAN, NATURAL MOTHER, SMT.DANESHWARI W/O.CHIKKAYYA MATHAD AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:BANDIGANI-587311, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST:BAGALKOT. 12. KUMAR AMARANATH S/O.CHIKKAYYA MATHAD AGED: ABOUT 12 YEARS, OCC: MINOR, BY HIS MINOR GUARDIAN, NATURAL MOTHER, SMT.DANESHWARI W/O.CHIKKAYYA MATHAD AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:BANDIGANI-587311, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST:BAGALKOT. 13. SMT.ANUSAYA W/O.VISHWANATH HIREMATH, AGED: ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:CHIKKODI-591201, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 14. SMT. SHIVALEELA, D/O.DANAYYA MATHAD, AGED: ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, C/O: PAVANKUMAR PRABHAKAR 124, RAMLEELA GROUND, BHEEM NAGAR, GURAGOWN-122022, DIST: GURAGOWN, HARYANA STATE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO A) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2091 WP No. 100982 of 2026 SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2026, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI IN O.S. NO. 376/2025 REJECTING THE I.A. NO. VI FILED BY APPLICANT / PETITIONER, UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A AND, B) ALLOW THE I.A. NO. VI FILED BY APPLICANT / PETITIONER, UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI IN O.S. NO. 376/2025, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E, C) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. 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 Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.VI in O.S.No.376/2025 dated 02.02.2026 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, the petitioner who is a third party is before this Court. 2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed O.S.No.376/2025 seeking partition and separate possession. The defendant No.1 had died during the pendency of the suit and later, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2091 WP No. 100982 of 2026 respondents herein who are the plaintiffs and defendants had compromised the suit. It is the case of the third party that defendant No.1 in the suit had executed a Will in favour of the petitioner and he is a proper and necessary party to the suit. Accordingly, he had filed I.A.No.VI under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after referred to as ‘CPC’). According to the petitioner, under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, he is entitled to come on record, though he is a party to the suit and he can question the compromise decree. Along with I.A.No.VI, he has filed another application to set aside the compromise decree and sought for other consequential reliefs. 3. The trial Court by order impugned had rejected I.A.No.VI filed by the petitioner. While rejecting the application, the trial Court had observed that the plaintiffs and defendants are brothers and sisters. The proposed applicant is stranger to the plaintiffs and defendants. Moreover, as on the date of the filing of present petition, no such suit is pending between the parties of present petition, no such suit is pending between the parties to adjudicate the matter by the trial Court. The plaintiffs and defendants already settled the matter amicably by filing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2091 WP No. 100982 of 2026 compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. Moreover, the documents filed by the proposed applicant reveals that on the basis of alleged Will executed by defendant No.1, they have filed petition seeking Probate before the Additional District and Sessions Court at Athani which is pending for consideration. Further, under the compromise petition, the plaintiffs and defendants are not at all divided the suit properties. Under the compromise petition, the plaintiffs and defendants entered their names jointly in the records of rights by deleting the name of deceased defendant No.1. 4. Further, the decree obtained by the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.1 i.e., plaintiffs and defendants, cannot be reopened or remanded at the instance of proposed defendant No.14 who is claiming under Will, unless he establishes a strong prima facie legal right through the strict proof of the Will’s execution and attestation. In the absence of such proof, the trial Court will not interfere with settled rights of the plaintiffs and defendants. If the proposed party acquired the suit properties under Will, he has got right to prove in accordance with law. Under such circumstances, the applicant is neither proper party - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2091 WP No. 100982 of 2026 nor necessary party to the suit and nothing remained to be adjudicated in the matter and no such matter pending before the trial Court. Hence, the trial Court is not inclined to allow the application seeking impleadment. The proposed party had relied on 14 rulings of the High Court of Karnataka, High Court of Bombay and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The trial Court had observed that almost all rulings cited by the counsel in respect of party disputing about awareness of contents of compromise and decree is alleged to be fraudulent such decree can be determined only by the Court which passed such decree. In this case, the proposed applicant is not party to the suit nor it is their contention that the compromise decree obtained by playing fraud etc. upon him. Hence, the said judgments are not applicable and accordingly, the trial Court had rejected the application. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/third party submits that he is a proper and necessary party and in the light of the settled law, if any judgment is obtained by playing fraud, the party can approach before the very same Court. In the light of the same, he can come on record as per Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and as such he has filed an application under Order 1 Rule - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2091 WP No. 100982 of 2026 10(2) of CPC. The trial Court without considering that the petitioner being a legatee under the Will can be impleaded and without even considering the judgments that are relied on by the petitioner had rejected the application. Learned counsel has relied on an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Venkatesh Bandenavar and Ors Vs. Laxmibai and Anr arising out of WP.No.202339/2025 dated 14.01.2026. He had relied on paragraph Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24 and 25 which reads as follows: “17. Division Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors. v. Srimanth Chhatrapati Udyan Raje Pratasinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another, reported in (2024) 15 SCC 675 in paragraph No.39 has held as under: “39. Admittedly the plaintiff is a stranger to the suits which ended in compromise. Therefore, in view of the direct bar under Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC, he cannot seek a declaration "that the compromise decrees passed in Special Civil Suits Nos. 152 of 1951 and 1622 of 1988 and Civil Appeal No. 787 of 2001, Pune are void ab initio, null and void and the same are liable to be set aside". The law on this point is also already settled by this Court in Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh. The bar under Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC is applicable to third parties as well and the only remedy available to them would be to approach the same court. In the present case, such an exercise is also not possible in view of the bar of limitation. Hence, we find the suit to be unsustainable.” 18. Division Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manjunath Tirakappa Malagi and Anr. V. Gurusiddappa Tirakappa Malagi (dead through Lrs.), - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2091 WP No. 100982 of 2026 reported in 2025 INSC 517 at paragraph Nos.12 and 15 as held as under: 12. The only remedy against a compromise decree is to file a recall application. This Court in Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 566 summed up the position of law as follows: "17. The position that emerges from the amended provisions of Order 23 can be summed up thus: (i) No appeal is maintainable against a consent decree having regard to the specific bar contained in Section 96(3) CPC. (ii) No appeal is maintainable against the order of the court recording the compromise (or refusing to record a compromise) in view of the deletion of clause (m) of Rule 1 Order 43. (iii) No independent suit can be filed for setting aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful in view of the bar contained in Rule 3-A. (iv) A consent decree operates as an estoppel and is valid and binding unless it is set aside by the court which passed the consent decree, by an order on an application under the proviso to Rule 3 Order 23. Therefore, the only remedy available to a party to a consent decree to avoid such consent decree, is to approach the court which recorded the compromise and made a decree in terms of it, and establish that there was no compromise. In that event, the court which recorded the compromise will itself consider and decide the question as to whether there was a valid compromise or not. This is so because a consent decree is nothing but contract between parties superimposed with the seal of approval of the court. The validity of a consent decree depends wholly on the validity of the agreement or compromise on which it is made..." Thus, even if he accept the contention of the appellant that their father was coerced by his brothers and father (appellants’ grandfather) to enter into a compromise, which led to the passing of the consent decree, a fresh suit is still not a valid remedy. In that situation, the appellants’ father should have filed a recall application before the Court that had passed the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2091 WP No. 100982 of 2026 decree. The appellants’ father has never done so! Moreover, he had admitted the consent decree and never questioned its validity. 15. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the High Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.” 19. In the present case on hand, it is the case of petitioners that they were not made parties to the original suit and compromise decree has been passed by the learned Trial Judge in their absence. It is also contended that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of petitioners and husband of respondent No.1. But, behind the back of the petitioners, a deliberate attempt was and fraudulent compromise decree is obtained, which is illegal and arbitrary and the same has to be set aside. 20. Several judgments are passed by this Court and various Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Triloki Nath Singh (supra) and Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors. (supra) very specifically dealt with challenge by a stranger to the compromise decree, whether to be made by way of separate suit or in the same Court, which passed the compromise decree. The question has been raised in the following manner- “The question arises in the appeal for our consideration is as to whether on a decree passed in a compromise petition can be challenged by the stranger to the proceedings in a separate suit?” and the same has been answered in the negative, in view of the specific bar under Rule 3A of Order XXIII of Code of Civil Procedure. The said opinion of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2020 is further fortified by the later judgment, dealing with the very same issue in the case of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors. (supra), by holding “The law on this point is already settled by this Court in Triloki Nath Singh the bar under Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC is applicable to third party as well. The only remedy available to them would be to approach the very same Court, which drew compromise decree.” 21. In the case of Manjunath Tirakappa Malagi and Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the fresh suit is still not valid remedy against compromise decree. The only remedy would be to file - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2091 WP No. 100982 of 2026 an application before the same Court, which passed the compromise decree. 24. If a person, who is not party to the compromise decree challenged the said compromise decree by way of a separate suit, the same is not sustainable, in view of specific bar under Order XXIII Rule 3-A, CPC. 25. In the present case on hand, the petitioners are not parties to the compromise decree and they have filed present writ petition, questioning the compromise decree. The writ petition would not be maintainable as remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the very same Court, which passed the compromise decree to agitate and urge all points and contentions that are taken in this petition before the said Court.” 6. He had also relied on paragraph Nos.17 and 22 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Triloki Nath Singh Vs. Anirudh Singh (DEAD) thr. LRS and Ors1 “17. By introducing the amendment to the Civil Procedure Code(Amendment) 1976 w.e.f. 1st February, 1977, the legislature has brought into force Rule 3A to Order 23, which create bar to institute the suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which decree is based was not lawful. The purpose of effecting a compromise between the parties is to put an end to the various disputes pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction once and for all. 22. Indeed, the appellant was not a party to the stated compromise decree. He was, however, claiming right, title and interest over the land referred to in the stated sale deed dated 6 th January, 1984, which was purchased by him from Sampatiya judgment debtor and party to the suit. It is well settled that the compromise decree passed by the High Court in the second appeal would relate 1 (2020) 6 SCC 629 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2091 WP No. 100982 of 2026 back to the date of institution of the suit between the parties thereto. In the suit now instituted by the appellant, at the best, he could seek relief against Sampatiya, but cannot be allowed to question the compromise decree passed by the High Court in the partition suit. In other words, the appellant could file a suit for protection of his right, title or interest devolved on the basis of the stated sale deed dated 6th January, 1984, allegedly executed by one of the party (Sampatiya) to the proceedings in the partition suit, which could be examined independently by the Court on its own merits in accordance with law. The trial Court in any case would not be competent to adjudicate the grievance of the appellant herein in respect of the validity of compromise decree dated 15 th September, 1994 passed by the High Court in the partition suit.” 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the trial Court had rightly considered the application that is filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC and rejected the same. It is submitted that in the facts of the case where the suit is filed seeking partition where the family members have compromised the same, based on a Will, the petitioner has remedy of filing a separate suit. He submits that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere. 8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. In the suit for partition, defendant No.1 who is the father has died. The parties have filed - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2091 WP No. 100982 of 2026 a compromise memo stating that deleting the name of defendant No.1, their names may be entered into the revenue records. Further, defendant No.1 is no more and all the legal heirs are on record and accordingly, they have entered into a compromise. Whenever a party alleges that a particular compromise decree is obtained by way of fraud, where they have to go before the very same Court and seek the relief and they cannot file a separate suit. In this case, the petitioner before this Court is not a party to the suit. According to the petitioner, the father of the plaintiffs i.e., defendant No.1 has executed a Will in favour of the petitioner. He is asserting his right to the property based on a Will. The petitioner is not precluded from filing a separate suit whereby he has to seek declaration that he is the owner of the property by virtue of the Will that is executed by defendant No.1 and he has to prove the same. 9. Now, in the compromise between the family members, the petitioner who is a third party who asserts his right by way of a Will is not a proper and necessary party and under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, in the facts and circumstances, he cannot be impleaded as a party. The trial Court by way of an elaborate - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2091 WP No. 100982 of 2026 order had considered all these aspects and rejected the application. The trial Court had also left all the remedies that are available to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reasons to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. However, the petitioner is always at liberty to agitate his rights before the appropriate Court in accordance with law. iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MEG CT:CNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16