IMPORTANT POINT
Challenges to compromise decrees based on fraud must be made in the court that issued the decree, and such allegations require substantial proof.

ORDER :

(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the relief of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the decree dated 25.06.2022 passed in Megha Lok Adalath in O.S.No.101/2021 produced at Annexure-V and consequently to restore the suit in O.S.No.101/2021 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad and grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner is that;

3.1. The petitioner hails from a well known business family dealing with Automotive and a major Dealer of Ashok Leyland parts and was working as a Chief Executive Sales Officer for 14 Industries.

3.2. The petitioner came in contact with respondent No.1 and his family, as respondent No.1 showed interest in purchasing property belonging to the petitioner, more fully described in the suit.

3.3. As the respondent No.1 was retired professor, he could not mobilise the amount of sale agreement and he expressed his desperate need of house and requested to handover the house by assuring payment within 3 months, and further to gain confidence of the petitioner, he agreed to sell his property bearing Sy.No.217 and 218 measuring total 10 Acres situated at Yerikoppa Village.

3.4. The petitioner believing the words of respondent No.1, handed over his residential house and entered in to an Agreement of Sale by creating interest in the property and further he had executed General Power of Attorney on 19.07.2016 in favour of the petitioner as an alternate option of clearing all litigation over the property and for realisation of said property.

3.5. The respondent No.1 had induced the petitioner to make investment for development of the litigated landed properties belonging to him and the petitioner, believing the words of the respondent No.1 formed one Partnership under the name and Style "Earthly Solution."

3.6. Respondent No.1 and his son thought of developing their litigated properties through the petitioner and assured him those properties will become the assets of the Partnership Firm and assured returns on the investments made. Accordingly, both respondent No.1 and his son entered MOU.

3.7. The petitioner by taking hard earned money of his father, nearly more than Rupees 3.8 crores invested in the litigated land belonging to respondent No.1.

3.8. Respondent No.1 also had executed one more General Power of Attorney in respect of one of the litigated properties continuing the interest over the property as an assurance for the investment made by the petitioner and his family members and promised that, after litigation he will sell that property to the petitioner's family members mentioning the earlier General Power of Attorney and Agreement of Sale.

3.9. Respondent No.1 after receipt of sale consideration amount of two properties, he did not pay amount to the petitioner saying that he got his daughter and son's marriage and assured that, after receipt of the sale consideration of two properties, he will pay off his investments and his profit sharing amount and for assurance he executed one registered sale agreement and one registered General Power of Attorney with respect to property bearing Sy.No.217/2 and 218/2.

3.10. Further, respondent No.1 executed one more Special Power of Attorney in respect of property bearing Sy.No.217/1 and 281/1 total measuring 9 Acres 36 Guntas. It is also the averment that, respondents No.2 and 3 along with their mother are trying to create right over that property based on the concocted deed and requested the petitioner to clear off the property and realise the same and setoff the amount from the sale consideration amount.

3.11. The petitioner, as per the request of respondent No.1, has filed RTS Appeals in RTS Appeal No.6/2021 and RTS Appeal No.9/2021 in respect of properties bearing