The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the above writ petition for quashing of the impugned compromise judgment and decree decree dated 28.02.2006 and 6.3.2006 made in O.S. No.81/2004 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Ramdurga, and for restoration of the suit on its file mainly on the ground that the impugned compromise judgment and decree of the Court below is improper and illegal and the said compromise decree obtained by the defendant is a fraudulent act committed by son-in-law of the petitioner, who is the cousin brother of respondent.

2. The facts of the case are as under:

The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant contending that the land bearing Sy.No.250/1 measuring 4 acres 7 guntas situated at Mallur village, Kagadhal Taluk, Saundatti. The plaintiff is the mother-in-law of the defendant. Defendant is the wife of the deceased Basavaraddi Bhimappa Basuraddi. The deceased Basavaraddi is the son of the plaintiff. The defendant led the marital life with the deceased Basavaraddi for about one year and thereafter, the relation of the defendant strained with this plaintiff and the deceased Basavaraddi and the defendant started to reside in her parental house at Kagadhal Taluk, Saundatti. Thereafter the plaintiff, her son - Basavaraddi and elderly persons of the village went to the defendant’s house and tried to bring her back in order to lead matrimonial life, but the defendant did not return to the house of the plaintiff’s and the suit schedule property is under the ownership of the plaintiff-deceased Basavaraddi. The suit schedule property devolves upon the deceased Basavaraddi by way of Gift Deed by one Smt. Basawwa, wife of Basavaraddi Giraddi and the name of the deceased Basavaraddi has been mutated in M.E.No.2097 dated 22.10.1986. Since then, the deceased Basavaraddi was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property up to 4.2.2003 till his death. After his death, the plaintiff alone possessed and cultivated the suit land and the defendant has not possessed the suit land at any point of time. After the death of Basavaraddi, Varadi has been given to the revenue authorities to mutate the name of the plaintiff and defendant in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property and the same has been effected in Mutation Entry No.4952. The defendant has submitted her objections. The same was registered in RTC/SR/5/04-05. Thereafter M.E. No. 4952 has been certified holding that the plaintiff and defendant were the Class-I heirs and the names of the plaintiff and defendant have been mutated in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property. Against the said order, the defendant filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal in RTC No.85/03-04 and thereafter, the mutation entry No.4952 has been cancelled and the name of the defendant alone was ordered to be recorded and disposed off the appeal with a direction to the plaintiff to file a suit to establish her right over the suit property. Therefore, she was constrained to file the present suit.

3. The respondent/defendant filed her written statement denying the entire plaint averments and admitted that the suit property was in actual possession and enjoyment and cultivation of the deceased Basavaraddi and also admitted that Basavaraddi got the property by way of Gift Deed. She also admitted that after the death of Basavaraddi, the plaintiff has filed Varadi before the Tahsildar, Ramadurga to mutate her name. Accordingly, the Deputy Tahsildar mutated the name of the plaintiff and defendant in respect of the suit schedule property vide Mutation Entry No.4952, against which the defendant preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and cancelled mutation entry No.4952 and entered the name of the present defendant only etc.

4. In order to establish her case, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and two witnesses – P.Ws.2 a