Writ Petition No. 46176 of 2018 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12269 WP No. 46176 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 46176 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SEETHARATHNA. K D/O. LATE K. K. MAHALINGA BHAT, W/O. S. KESHAVA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, GURUKRUPA, KRISHNANAGARA, POST: CHIKKAMUDNOOR VILLAGE - 574 203. PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT. (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. SMT. K. M. REVATHI Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
W/O. LATE K. K. MAHALINGA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, "SRINANDANA", MARIL, KEMMINJE VILLAGE, POST: DARBE - 574 202. PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT. 2. SRI. K. VENKATRAMANA BHAT S/O. LATE K. K. MAHALINGA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 3. KUMARI NEEMA D/O. K. VENKATRAMANA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12269 WP No. 46176 of 2018 4. KUMARI NEHA D/O. K. VENKATRAMANA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY FATHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN, K. VENKATRAMANA BHAT 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT "NANDADEEPA", PADDAYOOR, PADNOOR VILLAGE - 574 203. NEHRU NAGARA, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT. 5. SRI. K. M. ARAVINDA BHAT S/O. LATE K. K. MAHALINGA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 6. SRI. VARUNA S/O. K. M. ARAVINDA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY FATHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN, K. M. ARAVINDA BHAT 7. KUMARI VARSHA D/O. K. M. ARAVINDA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY FATHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN, K. M. ARAVINDA BHAT, 5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF "SRINANDANA", MARIL KEMMINJE VILLAGE POST: DARBE - 574 202. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12269 WP No. 46176 of 2018 PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT. 8. DR. NANDA KISHOR S/O. LATE K. K. MAHALINGA BHAT AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS ENDODONTIST CONFIDENTIAL DENTAL CARE NO.117, RAJAJINAGAR 1ST BLOCK MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 086. 9. SMT. USHA KRISHNARAJ D/O. LATE K. K. MAHALINGA BHAT W/O. LATE KRISHNARAJ AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS "PALASHA", KALLARE NEAR M.R. COMPLEX POST: DARBE - 574 202. PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT. 10. SMT. DR. VIDYA PRAKASH D/O. LATE K. K. MAHALINGA BHAT W/O. DR. SATHYA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PRAKASH DENTAL CARE CENTRE J.C. ROAD, CHAMARAJPET OPP. GANDHI MANDIR, SAGARA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 11. SMT. DR. VEENA K. M. D/O. LATE K. K. MAHALINGA BHAT W/O. DR. JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS "JANVI", KADRI KAMBLA, MANGALURU - 575 004. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12269 WP No. 46176 of 2018 12. SMT. SHOBHA A. G. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D/O. LATE K. K. MAHALINGA BHAT, W/O. GOVINDARAJ A. K., SURABHI FARMS, 34-NEKKILADY - 574 325. PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT. NOTE: D1 DIED NOT MADE PARTY TO THE WRIT PETITION …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R5 – R7; R6 & R7 ARE MINORS & REP. BY R5; R4 IS MINOR & REP. BY R2; R2, R3, R10, R11 AND R12 -SERVED; V/O DATED 4/3/24 NOTICE TO R1 & R9 IS H/S; R8 – DR. NANDA KISHOR IS SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN OS NO.56/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ACJM., PUTTUR, D.K, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.06.2018 IN OS NO.56/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ACJM, PUTTUR, D.K. VIDE ANNX-H AND ALLOW I.A. NO.3 IN O.S.NO.56/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION AT PUTTUR, DK). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12269 WP No. 46176 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.3 in O.S. No.56 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and ACJM, Puttur, D.K., the applicant No.1 has preferred this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is the daughter of first respondent. The respondent Nos.2, 5 and 8 are her brothers. Respondent Nos.9 to 12 are her sisters. The other respondents are children of respondent No.5. On the ground that O.S.No.56 of 2005 is a partition suit filed between father, mother and brothers of the petitioner herein, leaving out the daughters and that father, mother and brothers of the petitioner entered into an unlawful and illegal compromise behind her back, partitioning the ancestral property amongst themselves and an erroneous decree has been passed by the Trial Court, which led to the petitioner preferring I.A.No.3 for recalling the said order and that the Trial Court erroneously rejected the said application, the present writ petition is filed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12269 WP No. 46176 of 2018 3. Admittedly, in O.S. No.56 of 2005, the petitioner has not been made a party to the proceedings. It was a partition suit filed leaving out certain members of the family as parties. Based on an application made jointly by the parties, the suit has been compromised. Subsequently, the petitioner herein claiming that she has a right over the property concerned, has preferred I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.56 of 2005 with a prayer to recall the said order. The Trial Court has rejected the same by assigning the following reasons:- “The applicant’s claiming to be daughters of late K.K. Mahalinga Bhat. Applicants not at all participated in the suit filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, final decree passed in OS.No.56/2005 admittedly not binding on the applicants. If at all applicants entitled for the share under Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act it is for applicants to approach competent court of law for appropriate relief. Decree passed before Lok- Adalath between the parties to the suit cannot be set aside based on the application filed by the non-parties to the suit. Applicants at liberty to lookout their remedy before appropriate court of law if so advised. Hence, the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12269 WP No. 46176 of 2018
Decision
ORDER IA.NO.III filed under Order 23 Rule 3A R/W Section 152 of CPC is hereby rejected.” 4. Admittedly, the suit has been compromised and disposed of. Thereafter, the petitioner has made an application before the Trial Court to recall the said order. The Trial Court has observed that a compromise decree cannot be recalled by the Trial Court. 5. Section 22E of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 reads as under:- “22E. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be final.— (1) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them. (2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court. (3) The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat. (4) Every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be final and shall not be - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12269 WP No. 46176 of 2018 called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding. (5) The Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any award made by it to a civil court having local jurisdiction and such civil court shall execute the order as if it were a decree made by that court.” 6. Further, as the Trial Court has rightly observed judgment passed in O.S.No.56 of 2005 determines the rights of the parties to the said original suit only against each other . It is only a ‘right of personam’ that is determined and it does not determine a ‘right in rem’ in respect of the properties which are subject matter of the original suit. The Trial Court, for the said reason, has rightly observed relief claimed by the petitioner herein being a relief of partition and that the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.56 of 2005 is not binding on her, she has liberty to file appropriate proceedings to redress her grievance, if any and has rejected the application. I do not see any error in the same. 7. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority, in the manner known to law, as observed by the Trial Court. If the petitioner were to - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12269 WP No. 46176 of 2018 file an original suit to enforce her rights in the property, if any, the same shall be considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law, including the aspect of limitation, based on the facts pleaded therein. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43