KAMALA v. IRAMMA

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE) AND:

1. IRAMMA W/O LATE EREGOWDA, D/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT ADAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST SALGAME HOBLI, HASSAN -01.

2. RANGAMMA, W/O NINGEGOWDA, D/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O ADAHALLI VILLAGE SALGAME HOBLI, HASSAN-01. …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.J. ANANDA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11/02/2023 PASSED IN THE LOK ADALATH PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.NO.187/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN (ANNX-A) CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE SAID SUIT. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28342 WP No. 14448 of 2026 HC-KAR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER

1. Sri H.J.Ananda, learned counsel who has filed vakalathnama before notice accepts notice respondent No.1.

2. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “Wherefore, the petitioners respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 11.02.2023 passed in the Lok-Adalath proceedings in O.S.No.187/2021 on the file of the First Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan (ANNEXURE-A) consequently, quash the compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the said suit. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

3. Respondent No.1 OS.No.187/2021 against respondent No.2 on

08.03.2021. Subsequently, on the matter being - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28342 WP No. 14448 of 2026 HC-KAR referred to the Lokadalath, a compromise petition came to be filed and accepted by the Lokadalath on

11.02.2023. It is challenging the same, petitioners are before this Court contending that the property which is the subject matter of the suit are the joint family properties as regards to which the petitioners have filed a subsequent suit OS.No.550/2025.

4. The respondents have compromised a suit pertaining to the joint family properties without making the petitioners a party to the said proceedings, which is sought to be enforced by making applications to the jurisdictional Revenue Authorities for necessary transfer of revenue documents. On that ground, he submits that a compromise accepted by Lokadalath as regards to which the petitioners are not parties being sought to be implemented against the property of the petitioners, the compromise - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28342 WP No. 14448 of 2026 HC-KAR decree passed by the Lokadalath is required to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents would, however, contend that the property is not joint family property. There is already a partition among the family members. The properties came to the share of the predecessor of the plaintiff on allotment being made and as such, the claim of the petitioners that the property is joint family property is false. The petitioners having filed a suit in OS.No.550/2025, wherein the petitioners have sought for a relief to cancel the compromise accepted by Lokadalath, it would have to be determined in the said suit.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents, perused the papers.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners and the respondents are members of the same family. The petitioners are - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28342 WP No. 14448 of 2026 HC-KAR claiming the partition has not occurred, respondents claiming that partition has occurred and 1st respondent’s father was allotted the property in question. The petitioners are stated to have filed a suit in OS.No.550/2025 for partition. That being so, the entitlement of the petitioners and respondents would have to be decided in the said suit in OS.No.550/2025, which is pending. The present compromise petition, which has been entered into in OS.No.187/2021 is by excluding the petitioners. Though, it is contended that a relief for setting aside the compromise has been sought for in OS.No.550/2025, such relief cannot be granted by the trial Court in as much as any compromise entered into before the Lokadalath would be amenable only to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and not to the civil jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

8. In that view of the matter, the trial Court not having jurisdiction to decide the said matter and to grant - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28342 WP No. 14448 of 2026 HC-KAR such relief, it is only this Court which can grant such relief. Taking into consideration that the petitioners and the respondents are belonging to the same family and rights of the parties regarding to the properties are required to be decided by the Court in OS.No.550/2025. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that there is already a partition would also have to be tested OS.No.550/2025.

9. Such being the case, I am of the considered opinion that a compromise decree entered into before the Lokadalath without making the petitioners as a party cannot be said to be binding on the petitioners and cannot be made use of by the respondents to affect revenue entries.

10. In that view of the matter, I pass the following ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:28342 WP No. 14448 of 2026 HC-KAR (ii) A certiorari is issued, the compromise recorded Lokadalath

11.02.2023 OS.No.187/2021, which is pending before the 7th Additional Civil Judge and JWFC, Hassan, is set aside. The said suit in OS.No.187/2021 restored. (iii) The suit in OS.No.187/2021 is withdrawn from the Court of the 7th Additional Civil Judge and JWFC, Hassan and transferred to the Court of 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and JWFC, Hassan, for clubbing and passing necessary orders so that there is no deviance in any orders which would be passed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4