IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.42363 OF 2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN 1. Lakshmikanthamma, D/o. Late Venkataswamy, W/o. Late Nallappa, Aged about 41 years, 2. Prema, D/o. Venkataswamy, W/o. Ashok, Aged about 29 years, B.Y.Venkataswamy Chinnappa, Since by LRs.
3. Narayanamma, W/o. Late Venkataswamy, Aged about 81 years, All are R/a Doddahasala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk, (By Sri. C.M.Venkata Reddy, Advocate) AND Motappa, S/o. Bypanna, Since died by LRs.
…Petitioners 1. Chokkamma, W/o. Late Motappa, Aged about 71 years, 2. Parvathamma, W/o. Late Motappa, Aged about 60 years, 3. Kavitha, D/o. Late Motappa, Aged about 30 years, 4. Mangala, D/o. Late Motappa, Aged about 28 years, 5. Somashekar, (Somanna) S/o. Late Motappa, Aged about 26 years, 6. Srinath, S/o. Late Motappa, Aged about 20 years, 7. Krishna, S/o. Late Motappa, Aged about 18 years, Sri. Krishnappa Since Died therefore he is Not mane party the LRs. Already on record, 8. Srirangaswamy, S/o. Krishnappa, Aged about 48 years, 9. Ravindra, S/o. Krishnappa, Aged about 45 years, Smt. Rukminiyamma, Since dead by LRs.
10. H.Srinivas, S/o. Chinnappa, Aged about 47 years, 11. Deepa, D/o. Srinivas, Aged about 20 years, 12. Divya, D/o. H.Srinivas, Aged about 20 years, 13. Kavya, D/o. H.Srinivas, Aged about 16 years, 14. Chinnu @ Likith, S/o. H.Srinivas, Aged about 12 years, Sri. Bypanna Since Died by LRs.
15. Shobavathi, W/o. Late Bypanna, Aged about 32 years, 16. Tejas, S/o. Late Bypanna, Aged about 11 years, 17. Madushri, D/o. Late Bypanna, Aged about 8 years, Respondents No.14 to 16 are R/at. Dimbachamanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk.
18. Ashwathamma, D/o. Krishnappa, Aged about 36 years, 19. Prakash, S/o. Krishnappa, Aged about 34 years, 20. Mohan, S/o. Krishnappa, Aged about 30 years, The Respondents No.16 to 17 Are minors hence represented By their father Respondent No.10, Above all are R/a Doddahasala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk.
(By Sri. B.N.Umesh, Advocate for R8 & R9;
…Respondents Sri. K.T.Mohan Kumar, Advocate for R10-R12 & R18-R20; R13, R14, R16 & R17 are minor represented by R10;
R1 to R7 & R15 - Served) This Writ Petition is filed under articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records in O.S.No.94/1996, on the file of Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn) & R.A.NO.21/05, on the file of District Judge, Fast Tract Court-IV at Kolar.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER Heard the petitioners’ counsel and the respondent‘s counsel. In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the compromise accepted by the Lok Adalat, Kolar held on 07.07.2007. The necessary details are that petitioners’ instituted a suit for partition O.S.No.94/1996 against the respondents. The said suit was decreed and challenging the same the respondents herein preferred an appeal R.A.No.21/2005. When the said appeal was pending before the Fast Track Court at Kolar, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat held on 07.07.2007. In the said Lok Adalat, compromise petition was filed and it was accepted. This compromise has been challenged here.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the compromise petition filed before the Lok Adalat, the boundaries of the shares allotted to the parties are not clearly mentioned. The boundaries given are defective and final decree is not possible to be drawn. This is the reason for challenging the compromise. He also submits that the parties will enter into another compromise mentioning the boundaries clearly. The learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the boundaries given in the compromise petition are not clear and therefore to the extent of mentioning the boundaries specifically, the compromise can be re-opened.
3. Whenever a compromise petition is filed in a partition suit, the boundaries of the shares allotted to each party must be clearly written because the compromise decree itself will be treated as final decree. If the boundaries are not clearly written or mentioned, the parties will find it difficult to take possession of their shares. The compromise petition shows 1/3rd share being given to every party, but the boundaries of every 1/3rd share are not mentioned. Boundaries of the entire land are given. This leads to further problem. Therefore Lok Adalat should not have accepted this sort of a compromise. For these reasons this writ petition requires to be allowed. Hence the following:
O R D E R i. Writ petition is allowed ii. The compromise accepted on 07.07.2007 by Lok Adalat is quashed.
iii. R.A.No.21/2005 is restored to the file of Fast Track Court, Kolar. The parties are at liberty to enter into another compromise only for the purpose of mentioning clear boundaries of the shares to be allotted to each of the party.
Sd/- JUDGE sd