A separate suit challenging a compromise decree is maintainable if the plaintiff was not a party to the original suit and is claiming rights independently through a will.

CAV JUDGMENT

This regular first appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the order dated 17.08.2023 passed in O.S.No.10414/2015 by the Court of LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 62) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short) on the order passed on I.A.No.19 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for short), thereby, the plaint is rejected as barred by law under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC.

2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE:

3. The plaintiff is Ramakrishna Math, established by Swami Vivekananda in Bengaluru. It is pleaded that originally S.Narayana was the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. He was an ardent devotee of the plaintiff/Ramakrishna Math and was a regular visitor and participant in its various programmes. The suit schedule property was allotted by the Bengaluru Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘BDA’ for short) on 22.10.1973 and subsequently, the said S.Narayana was put into possession of the suit schedule properties vide possession certificate dated 16.07.1974. Thereafter, the BDA has executed the sale deed dated 23.05.1990 through registered sale deed and thereafter khatha certificate was issued in the name of S.Narayana.

Thus S.Narayana became owner of the schedule property.

4. During his lifetime, S.Narayana and his wife Smt.Jayarathna, lived together in the suit schedule property and had no issues. S.Narayana died intestate on 22.07.2013 leaving behind his wife Smt.Jayarathna, as his only legal heir to succeed his estate. The said Smt.Jayarathna is only being Class-I legal heir of S.Narayana, succeeded to her husband’s property and got her name mutated in the revenue records of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as ‘BBMP’ for short) and started paying taxes regularly and continued to reside in the suit schedule property.

5. It is pleaded that Smt.Jayarathna, like her husband, was also an ardent devotee of plaintiff/Ramakrishna Math. During her lifetime, she executed a registered Will dated 01.02.2014bequeathing the suit schedule property to plaintiff/Ramakrishna Math. Smt.Jayarathna died on 18.10.2014. Based on the Will dated 01.02.2014, the plaintiff/Ramakrishna Math applied and got mutated its name in the revenue records of BBMP and BBMP issued khatha certificate and khatha extract was issued in the name of plaintiff/Ramakrishna Math on 06.07.2015. The plaintiff/RamakrishnaMath,has been paying taxes since then.

6. Subsequent to filing of the suit on 27.07.2016, the Adhyaksha/president of the plaintiff/Ramakrishna Math, who was executor of the Will dated 01.02.2014, filed a petition numbered P & SC No.269/2016 under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking the grant of probate of the Will of the late Smt.Jayarathna dated 01.02.2014. The City Civil Court, Bengaluru granted probate of the Will and testament of Smt.Jayarathna in favour of Adhyaksha/President of the plaintiff/Ramakrishna Math. Thus, in this way, the plaintiff/Ramakrishna Math, became the absolute owner of the suit property.

7. When this being the fact that the defendant, during the month of July 2015 started to claim that the suit schedule property belongs to him and approached BBMP to change khatha in his name based on the compromise decree passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura in O.S.No.23/2014. But the plaintiff/Ramakrishna Math is not par