Compromise decrees must be entered with proper representation and knowledge of all parties; if procured without consent, they are invalid.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

“a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the Compromise decree dated 21-08-2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Hukkeri at Hukkeri in OS No.291 of 2022 as per ANNEXURE-G and restore the suit by issue any other suitable writ or directions.

b. Issue such other suitable orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. The suit is instituted in O.S. No.291 of 2022 seeking partition and separate possession. It transpires that the petitioner executes a general power of attorney to conduct the case before the concerned Court on 19.08.2022. One week thereafter, the matter ends up in a compromise.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the general power of attorney did not indicate entering into a compromise and taking away the rights of the petitioner, it was only to conduct the case. One week within execution of the general power of attorney, the matter is compromised and the proceeds are now distributed to all. Learned counsel submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.103766 of 2018, disposed on 31.03.2022, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench held as follows:

1. “The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief:

TO QUASH THE COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 26.07.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUBBALLI (LOK ADALAT) IN O.S.NO.246/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-“A” AND THE COMPROMISE PETITION DATED:26.07.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE- “E” AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE O.S.NO. 246/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUBBALLI FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION ON MERITS.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that a compromise petition was entered into in O.S. No.246/2014 pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Hubballi in the Lok-Adalat proceedings by a person claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the petitioner and as such the petitioner’s interest in the suit schedule property therein has been compromised without the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore a fraud has been committed on the petitioner by resorting to an abuse of the process of the Court and filing of a compromise petition in the Lok-Adalat.

3. Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit in O.S. No.246/2014 had been filed by respondent No.2 herein against the petitioner represented by the power of attorney holder seeking for specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale dated 25.04.2014 which is alleged to have been executed by the alleged power of attorney holder of the petitioner.

4. In the said suit upon notice being ordered without service of notice on the petitioner, respondent No.1 who claims to be the power of attorney holder of the petitioner had entered appearance and filed a compromise petition even before return of notice. The compromise petition having been filed before the Court, the matter was referred to the Lok- Adalat and in that Lok-Adalat a compromise was recorded by the conciliators and compromise decree was directed to be passed.

5. Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar submits that once earlier a power of attorney which had been issued in favour of the father of respondent No.1 as regards the said properties had been cancelled by a public notice dated 15.12.2012 published in the newspaper Sanjevani on 16^th December, 2012.

6. The petitioner not having executed any power of attorney in favour of respondent No.1, the power of attorney claimed by respondent No.1 is fabricated one and as such neither the agreement of sale could be executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 nor could a compromise be entered into by the respondent No.1 with respondent No.2 for the Lok-Adalat to record. I