Allegations of fraud in a compromise decree are maintainable in Civil Court, requiring a full trial for resolution.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This miscellaneous second appeal is filed by the defendant/appellant challenging the order passed in R.A.No.14/2023 dated 07.8.2023 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, which reversed the order passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.5/2023 dated 15.6.2023 on preliminary issue, dismissing the suit as not maintainable. 2. Rank of the parties as stated before the Trial Court for easy reference and convenience.

3. The plaintiff/respondent has filed the suit for declaration of title and consequential relief in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is the contention of the plaintiff that she is the owner of suit schedule property, which was granted in favour of her husband. Per contra, the case of the defendant is that the suit schedule property was allotted to his share through an award by Lok-Adalath, in view of compromise held between husband of the plaintiff along with others. Therefore, it is the defense raised by the defendant that suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff while filing the suit for declaration, has challenged the award passed in Lok-Adalath in a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise decree was obtained by playing fraud.

4. The trial Court has framed a issue on the pleadings as to whether the suit is not maintainable as narrated in the written statement and answered the said issue i.e., issue No.3 in the affirmative and held that the suit is not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed the suit. The reason assigned by the trial Court to dismiss the suit is that the compromise decree passed in Lok-Adalath cannot be challenged in the suit and the remedy lies elsewhere other than Civil Court. Hence, on these reasons dismissed the suit as not maintainable. The plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the trial Court before the First Appellate Court.

5. The First Appellate Court has reversed the order passed by the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court for disposal afresh by giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and to proceed with the matter. The First Appellate Court assigned the reason that the trial Court has not framed issue regarding ownership of the suit property and also not given findings in respect of all the issues framed by them. Therefore, exercising its power under Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure , remanded the matter to the trial Court. Against this order, the defendant has preferred the present miscellaneous second appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the husband of the plaintiff has filed suit for partition and separate possession and it was ended in compromise decree in Lok-Adalath. Subsequently, the husband of the plaintiff has filed another suit for declaration that was also dismissed. Now, the plaintiff being the wife of one Rangamuthaiah-plaintiff in earlier suits has filed suit for declaration to declare that she is the owner of the suit property. Therefore, it is submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and it is correctly held by the trial Court. Hence, he prays to confirm the order of the trial Court by setting aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court.

7. The trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the suit as not maintainable for the reason that the compromise decree in Lok-Adalath cannot be challenged in the Civil Court, where allegation of fraud is made in compromise decree in Lok-Adalath, suit is very well maintainable as held by this Court in the case of ABHISHEK S/O. VENKAREDDY MELAGIRI AND ANOTHER vs. CHOURADDY S/O. BHEEMRADDY MELAGIRI AND OTHERS in RFA.No.100154/2015 dated 25.04.2024, because the element of fraud alleged in the plaint cannot be decided in writ proceedings but the same could be adjudicated only in a full-fledged trial. As there are various disputed facts involved, the trial Court committed an error in dism