BASAVAN KUDACHI v. DIST: BELAGAVI-590001

(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND:

PRAMILA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR KUNDARGI AGE 60 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O: PLOT NO.217, DEVARAJ URS COLONY, BASAVAN KUDACHI, VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL … PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:4640 WP No. 104104 of 2017 DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.

HEMALATA W/O UDAY BENDIGERI AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O: PLOT NO.4, SWARNAGIRI, ACHAMMAN COLONY, SAI NAGAR, UNAKAL HUBBALI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

SHRI.SUDHAKAR S/O CHANDRASHEKAR KUNDARGI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: PLOT NO.217, DEVARAJU URS COLONY, BASAVAN KUDACHI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S TELI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER 25.03.2014 PASSED BY HON'BLE LOK ADALAT VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN O.S.NO.58/2014 AND COMPROMISE DECREE IN O.S.58/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:06.01.2017 PASSED ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 152 OF CPC IN OS 58/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN GROUP ‘B’, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:4640 WP No. 104104 of 2017 ORDER

1. The petitioners herein are challenging the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.58/2014 by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi.

2. O.S. No.58/2014 is filed by the late husband of petitioner No.1, who was also the father of petitioner No.2 herein. He filed a suit for partition and separate possession against his mother, sister and brother. The said suit ended in a compromise and the husband of petitioner No.1 has been granted share as mentioned in the compromise decree. On the ground that the same was obtained by fraud and that petitioner No.2 was a minor at that time and she was an equal coparcener and in derogation of her rights, the compromise decree has been entered into, the present writ petition is filed challenging the compromise.

3. Admittedly, the husband of petitioner No.1 who was also the father of petitioner No.2 herein has not challenged the compromise during his life time. Further, it - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:4640 WP No. 104104 of 2017 is not in dispute that he was the head of the family (Kartha) and he has taken a decision in his own welfare and it is not that he has been denied any share in the joint family property.

The pleadings made in the writ petition do not state as to what is the fraud committed.

A reading of the writ petition as well as the documents produced reveal that the writ petition is frivolous and is filed with the sole intention of unsettling the compromise that has been entered into between the family members mutually. The writ petition is vexatious in nature.

For the aforementioned, the writ petition is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- Sd/- JUDGE VNP/ CT : VP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8