1. This writ petition is filed seeking quashing of the compromise decree made in O.S. No. 278 of 2002 on 13.12.2002 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Jamakhandi.

2. This is an another classic case of abuse of the wonderful concept of ‘Lok Adalat’ which is used as an instrument to deprive an uneducated and poor lady of her valuable right to an immoveable property which the Parliament has conferred on her by enacting Hindu Succession Act as well as by amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, conferring a coparcenery right on a woman.

3. One Ningappa was the propositus. He had a son by name Annasaheb. The said Annasaheb married one Awwasaheb and through her he had two daughters by name Indumati and Akkubai. Annasaheb died on 14.01.1994. He married one Gouravva. Through Gouravva he had five daughters and one son by name Venkata Rao. The said joint family owned four items of agricultural land and two house properties. The second daughter Akkubai was married. It appears there was some disharmony between her and her husband and therefore she returned to her parents’ house. The said Annasaheb executed a registered Will bequeathing Sy.No.155/2 measuring 9 acres 22 guntas and half share in VPC No.370 and entire VPC No.371 under a registered Will dated 24.02.1992 in favour of Akkubai. Acting on the said Will even during the lifetime of her father, mutation entries were made out in her name. Her sister Kamalakshi @ Indumati filed a suit in O.S.No.200/98 for partition and separate possession of her legitimate share in the joint family property. The said suit was filed against her father who was arrayed as first defendant, Smt. Gouravva, the second wife of Annasaheb as second defendant, Akkubai her sister as third defendant and purchasers were also made parties as defendants4 to 7. As one of the subject matters of the land was subject matter of acquisition, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was impleaded as 8th defendant. As is clear from the cause title itself, she was not prepared to recognize the second defendant Gouravva as wife of Annasaheb. Therefore she did not make her children as parties to the suit. In the said suit, Annasaheb, Gouravva and Akkubai were represented by common Advocate by name Sri M.C. Bhandari, Advocate, Jamakhandi. In the said suit, an application was filed for direction to the Land Acquisition Officer prohibiting him from disbursing compensation amount in respect of suit schedule B property to defendants1 to 7 to the extent of admitted 1/3rd share of 8th the plaintiff. The suit against defendant came to be dismissed as Deputy Commissioner or Chief Secretary to Government were not made parties as contemplated under Order 27 Rule 5 CPC. The aforesaid order came to be passed on 03.10.2002. The case was posted for hearing regarding maintainability of the suit on 17.01.2003.

4. During the pendency of the suit, Annasaheb died on 22.10.2002. Venkata Rao, S/o Annasaheb through his second wife, filed a suit in O.S.No.278/02 against Akkubai, Kumari. Shanta and Smt. Gouravva on 12.12.2002, for partition and separate possession in respect of property which had been bequeathed in favour of Akkubai by her father. In the genealogy which is set out in para 2 of the plaint, it is clearly mentioned that Annasaheb through Gouravva has five daughters by name Vijayalaxmi, Meenaxi, Sharada, Sumitra and Shanta. Only Shanta has been made party to the suit as defendant No.2. It also discloses that Annasaheb through his first wife Awwasaheb had two daughters Akkubai and Indumati. Akkubai is made as first defendant and Indumati was not made party, though as on the date of the suit, Indumati had filed O.S.No.200/98 seeking for partition and Gouravva was the second defendant in the said suit and Akkubai was third defendant. The order sheet in the said suit is produced as AnnexureE to the writ petition. It discloses that along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and an affidavit is filed by the Ad