Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 17912
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.44744/2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. V. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
2. SRI. Y. VENKATESHA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
by RUPA V BOTH ARE R/AT NO.69, 3 RD FLOOR Location: High ASTAGRAMA LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE Court of KAMAKASHIPALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD karnataka BENGALURU - 560 079.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAMAIAH GOWDA L.M. ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. GANGADHARAIAH S/O LATE ANADANAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
2. SMT. M.N. BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE BORALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
3. SRI. MAHESHA S/O LATE BORALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
4. SRI. ANIL S/O LATE BORALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
5. SRI. JAYARAMAIAH @ KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE ANADANAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
6. SRI. RAJKUMAR S/O LATE ANADANAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
7. SMT. LALITHA D/O LATE ANADANAIAH W/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
8. SMT. SHIVAMMA D/O LATE ANADANAIAH W/O SHIVARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 9. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE ANADANAIAH W/O RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
10. SMT. PRAMILA D/O LATE ANADANAIAH W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
NO.1 TO 10 ARE R/AT GEJJAGAL PALYA VILLAGE MARIKUPPA POST SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562 120.
11. SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI D/O LATE KAMBE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
12. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE KAMBE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
13. SRI. SHIVARAMAIAH S/O LATE KAMBE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
11 TO 13 ARE R/AT GOLLARAPALYA KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MITHUN G.A. A/W SRI. JAYARAMAIAH, ADV., FOR R2 TO R4 SRI. PAVAN KUMAR M.N. ADV., FOR R1, R2, R6, R8, R9 AND R12 V/O/DTD:20.03.2020 NOTICE TO R11 AND R13 ARE H/S V/O/DTD:07.02.2023 NOTICE TO R5, R7 AND R10 ARE H/S)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 30.1.2001 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JDUGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AT MAGADI IN SUIT O.S.NO.40/2001, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE & ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
15.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
A decree passed against a deceased individual is declared void; courts must ensure the legitimacy of powers of attorney and the authenticity of compromise arrangements.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 3 - Compromise decree obtained by fraudulent representation - The decree passed against a deceased party is void and of no effect - The trial court and Lok Adalat failed to ascertain the legality of the compromise and the authority of the G.P.A holder representing the deceased. (Paras 10, 12, 16, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, as legal heirs of a deceased owner, challenged a compromise decree in favor of the plaintiff which was accepted by the Lok Adalat based on a G.P.A held by the plaintiff's brother-in-law, who allegedly committed fraud, as the original owner had died before the suit was filed. The petitioners contended that the suit was not maintainable as it lacked all legal heirs and the decree was based on a forged G.P.A. (Paras 2, 6, 8)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the compromise decree was obtained through fraud and void as it was passed against a deceased person without proper representation. The petitions for reviewing the decree were seen as necessary due to the fraudulent nature of the original proceedings. (Paras 11, 18)
Issues: The primary issues involved were the validity of the G.P.A and whether the action taken by the Lok Adalat lacked authority and procedure, as well as considerations of fraud and maintainability of the original suit. (Paras 10, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a decree against a deceased person is a nullity and cannot stand, emphasizing the necessity for courts to verify the authenticity of powers of attorney and the legitimacy of any compromise presented, especially when involving deceased parties. (Paras 12, 19)
Result: Writ petition allowed; the compromise decree was set aside.
CAV ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the compromise decree dated 30/1/2001 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Magadi in suit O.S.No.40/2001, produced as Annexure-G and allow this writ petition, to meet the ends of justice.
b) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice.
2. Sri.Ramaiah Gowda L.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that one Sri.Andanaiah filed a suit in O.S.No.40/2001 for a declaration that he is the absolute owner and is in possession of the suit schedule property by an adverse possession. The said suit was presented on 16.01.2001 before the Court. On the very said day, along with the plaint, an application in I.A.No.1 was filed requesting the Court to take up the matter on the same day to record the compromise. It is submitted that the Trial Court listed the said matter on 16.01.2001 and on the said day, the defendants were represented by a general power of attorney holder Sri.B.A.Kambe Gowda. The Trial Court accepted the vakalath as well as the application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , and posted the matter before the Lok Adalath. On 30.01.2001, a joint compromise entered into between the parties was allowed and the decree was drawn. It is further submitted that the GPA holder is none other than the brother-in-law of the plaintiff who has committed fraud and has entered appearance on behalf of the defendants. The defendant No.1-Smt. Subbamma died on 27.04.1998, which was three years prior to the filing of the suit. It is also submitted that item No.1 of the suit schedule property is a land granted in favour of the defendant No.1 on 23.03.1984 and item No.2 of the suit schedule property is a residential site which was granted in favour of the husband of the defendant No.1 and the father of defendant No.2. The suit filed by Sri.Andanaiah without arraying all the legal heirs of the deceased Sri.Venkata Reddy, itself was not maintainable as after the death of Sri.Venkata Reddy, the petitioners herein were entitled to a share in the property. It is contended that perusal of the averments in the plaint does not meet the requirements of the suit for adverse possession. In the absence of any such pleadings in the plaint, the plaint itself is not maintainable. It is further contended that the entire attempt of the plaintiff in O.S.No.40/2001 was to knock off the property of the petitioners by playing fraud on the Court as well as the petitioners. Noticing the same, the petitioners filed O.S.No.103/2011 challenging the decree of the Lok Adalat dated 30.01.2001 passed in O.S.No.40/2001. However, the Trial Court dismissed the aforesaid suit on the ground that the suit is not maintainable. Hence, he has filed this writ petition.
3. It is also contended that the respondents herein are the legal heirs and other family members of Sri.Andanaiah and the legal heirs of Sri.B.A.Kambe Gowda claiming to be the GPA holder and both the plaintiff as well as the said Sri.B.A.Kambe Gowda have committed fraud and obtained the decree before the Lok Adalat by suppressing the relevant facts. It is submitted that either the Court or the Lok Adalat, while accepting the compromise reported before them, ought to have ascertained the correctness and the legality of the compromise and after being satisfied, ought to have recorded the findings and then accepted the same. In the instant case, the very same Presiding Officer, who adjudicated the suit, adjourned the matter on the next day and sitting in the same Court acting as a judicial member of the Lok Adalat accepted the compromise, which is impermissible. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following decisions:
(1) M/s. ASHOK TRANSPORT AGENCY Vs. AWADHESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER ,
(2) BHARGA
