Compromise decrees are binding unless legally challenged, and mere allegations of fraud do not invalidate established agreements without sufficient proof or a court ruling to the contrary.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff in OS No.527/2018 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.10.2023 whereby the said suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the respondents-defendants for declaration and permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property was dismissed by the trial Court.

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the appellant-plaintiff is none other than the brother of the respondents-defendants. On 04.11.1991, the appellant instituted a suit in OS No.340/1991 against his father, brothers and others for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule immovable properties. In the said suit, the respondent herein is arrayed as defendant No.4. On 30.07.1992, the parties entered into a compromise in OS No.340/2021 pursuant to which, out of the total extent of land bearing survey No.142/1 measuring 9 acres 12 guntas, an extent of 5 acres was allotted in favour of appellant-plaintiff in terms of the compromise. It was contended that pursuant to the aforesaid compromise decree dated 30.07.1992, a khata in relation to the aforesaid 5 acres which is subject matter of present suit in OS No.527/2018 was mutated into the name of the appellant-plaintiff and revenue records continue to stand in his name thereafter.

3. Subsequently on 25.05.1998, the father of the parties Satteppa Nadagouda expired and on 09.04.2002 one more brother of the appellant and respondents, Sripathi filed one more suit in OS No.185/2002 against the respondents herein and others in which the respondent herein was arrayed as defendant No.2. On 20.04.2002 the said suit in OS 185/2002 in which the respondent herein was defendant No.2 along with his brother who are remaining parties, except the plaintiff was compromised vide a compromise decree dated 20.04.2002 wherein, the remaining extent of 4 acres 12 guntas out of total extent of 9 acres 12 gutnas (excluding 5 acres allotted in favour of appellant-plaintiff in the compromise decree dated 30.07.1992 passed in OS 340/1991) was distributed among the parties.

4. Subsequently, after long lapse of 26 years from the date of compromise decree dated 30.07.1992 passed in OS No.340/1991, the respondents challenged the said compromise decree by preferring W.P.103234/2018 before this Court which is pending adjudication.

5. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that there is no interim order passed in favour of the respondent who is the writ petitioner in the said petition.

6. Thereafter, the appellant-plaintiff instituted the present suit inter alia contending that the respondent was attempting to get the khata changed to his name by filing an appeal before Assistant Commissioner, under Section 136(2) of KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT , 1964, [Hereinafter for short ‘the Act’]. A result of which, the appellant-plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule property.

7. The respondent-defendant filed his written statement inter alia disputing and denying the various allegations and claims made by the plaintiff. Though the defendants admitted the institution of the aforesaid suit in OS 340/1991 by the plaintiff against his father and other brothers, the defendant contended that the said compromise decree was fraudulent, illegal and invalid and that he had challenged the same in the aforesaid WP No.103234/2018. The respondent herein also cont