ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the compromise entered into in O.S.No.407/2013 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta concerning the land bearing Sy.No.64/1 of Chikkadasarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk.

2. (i) The facts in brief are that a suit in O.S.No.148/2012 was filed for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs' share in the land bearing Sy.Nos.26/51, 67/10 and 26/54 situated at Chintadapi village, Kasaba Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk. (ii) The said suit was compromised on 20.04.2012. (iii) Later another suit in O.S.No.407/2013 was filed for partition and separate possession in respect of land bearing Sy.No.64/1 of Chikkadasarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk. (iv) A compromise petition was filed in O.S.No.407/2013, in terms of which, the plaintiff No.2 therein was entitled to 1 acre 20 guntas while the defendant No.3/petitioner herein was entitled to 1 acre 20 guntas. The parties identified the properties that fell to their share, consequent to which, the compromise petition was accepted and a preliminary decree was ordered to be drawn which was treated as a final decree. The copy of the decree was received by the plaintiffs on 13.01.2014 and the defendants on 16.01.2014. (v) Long thereafter, the petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.92/2017 for partition and separate possession of his 1/7th share in all the aforesaid properties. (vi) Following this, a suit in O.S.No.328/2017 was filed by Manjunath, the plaintiff No.2 in O.S.No.407/2013, for declaration of his title and injunction in respect of 1.20 acres in Sy.No.64/1 of Chikkadasarahalli village. In the said suit, the compromise recorded in O.S.No.407/2013 was referred to. (vii) Following this, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the compromise entered into in O.S.No.407/2013 on the ground that the said compromise was obtained fraudulently and without his knowledge and notice. He further contended that the compromise reported in O.S.No.407/2013 was unenforceable, in view of a condition imposed by the Court while accepting the compromise namely, plaintiff Nos.1, 3 and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 in O.S.No.407/2013 had to execute a relinquishment deed in favour of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.3 for the compromise to be effectual. He contended that since the relinquishment deed is not executed, the said compromise is unenforceable.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously voiced the aforesaid contentions and contended that the petitioner was tricked into believing that the papers that he had signed were needed to draw up a final decree in O.S.No.148/2012. He contended that the fraudulent nature of the compromise is established from the fact that the same was done even before the suit summons was issued. He submits that notwithstanding this, the compromise was accepted, subject to the condition that relinquishment deeds were not executed and therefore it was not effectual.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner cannot contend that he was not aware of the compromise and its terms etc. He submits that petitioner had engaged an advocate in O.S.No.407/2013, who participated in the compromise discussion and later filed a compromise petition before the Court. He submits that the terms of compromise was explained to the petitioner by the members of the Lok-Adalath and the petitioner admitted that he had signed the compromise petition on his own volition. He submits that petitioner and his advocate had collected a copy of decree passed in O.S.No.407/2013 on 16.01.2014. However, the petitioner has laid low for nearly 3 years and thereafter has filed O.S.No.92/2017. He therefore submits that it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner to now contend that the compromise reported in O.S.No.407/2013 was fraudulent and that he was not aware of the contents of the compromise petition. In so far as the condition attached to the acceptance of the compromise, learned counsel fo