The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing ownership over property and highlights the consequences of a compromise decree on property rights.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 7/4/2006 passed in OS No.122/2004 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Harihar, whereby the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for.

2. The parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience as per their original rankings before the Trial Court.

3. Brief factual matrix of the case are as under: Plaintiff filed a suit seeking cancellation of the portion of the decree passed in OS No.28/2003 dtd. 23/10/2003, in respect of 'C' schedule property and as well as cancellation of the portion of the partition deed dtd. 15/12/2003 executed by late K.H. Parameshwarappa and defendants relating to the suit land of the plaintiff shown as 'A' schedule in the said partition deed which has been allotted to Parameshwarappa son of Channabasappa. Case of the plaintiff further reveals that plaintiff is the owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.493/B measuring 4 acres 83 cents situated at Hiremeghala gere village, Arasikere Hobli, Harappanahalli Sub-Division, Davangere District bounded on East - land belonging to B.Siddappa; West - land belonging to Gurappala Halamma; North - land belonging to Hadapada Sharanappa and South - land belonging to Hanumanthappa [hereinafter referred to as the 'suit schedule property'] .

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that plaintiff purchased the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dtd. 13/7/1998 from its original owner Sri Pujar Mahadevappa for a valuable consideration in a sum of Rs.1, 64, 000.00. After purchase of the suit property, plaintiff got mutated the revenue entries in the concerned records and was enjoying the suit property. Title to the vendor of the plaintiff Pujar Mahadevappa is based on the court auction sale dtd. 2/12/1993.

5. The father of the first and second defendants and husband of the third defendant Sri K.H. Parameshwarappa died in the month of June 2004 leaving behind his son, daughter and wife. During the life time of Parameshwarappa, the first defendant filed a suit for partition in OS No.28/2003 seeking partition and separate possession of his share against his parents.

6. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the said suit in OS No.28/2003 ended in a compromise decree dtd. 23/10/2003. It is further contended that the said suit is a collusive suit and clandestinely suit property of the plaintiff was included as the joint family property in 'C' schedule in OS No.28/2003 without there being any documents whatsoever to substantiate that the suit property was the joint family property of K.H. Parameshwarappa. It is further contended that few documents were created by Parameshwarappa and first defendant got included the suit property into the scope of OS No.28/2003 and therefore, the compromise decree passed in OS No.28/2003 is not binding on the plaintiff.

7. It is also pleaded that defendants and late Parameshwarappa thereafter entered into registered partition deed on 15/12/2003 wherein Parameshwarappa got the suit property as his share. Subsequent to the registration of the partition deed, the revenue entries were mutated in the name of K.H. Parameshwarappa when the plaintiff came to know about the illegalities committed by the defendants by obtaining encumbrance on 10/5/2004, when he approached the Canara Bank for loan facility based on the suit property. He was shocked and surprised to see the name of Parameshwarappa and thereafter, collected necessary documents and came to know about the partition deed dtd. 15/12/2003 and decree in OS No.28/2003 and immediately, he approached the revenue authorities and objected for change of katha. The said application was registered in dispute No.CR.23/2004-05. He also contacted the defendants in this regard but his efforts were went in vain and therefore, left with no alternative, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking aforesaid prayer.

8. Upon service of suit summons, defendants entered appearance thr