IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 25175 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI.HARISHA R AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O. RANGEGOWDA. T, R/AT "SRI RANGANATHA NILAYA", NO.2165, 4^TH CROSS, COLLEGE ROAD, RAKSHANAPURAM, HASSAN CITY- 573 201.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. LAVANYA.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. YATHISH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. RANGEGOWDA, R/AT NO. 1141, Digitally signed "STAVYA", SMV LAYOUT, by GAVRIBIDA NUR 6TH BLOCK, ULLAL SUBRAMANYA UPANAGARA, GUPTA SREENATH BENGALURU- 560 091.

Location: HIGH …RESPONDENT COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. K.S.GANESHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION AND QUASH THE COMPROMISE PETITION DTD 07.03.2025 FILED IN O.S NO. 601/24 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN WHICH IS GIVEN HAREIN AT ANNX-E AND THE CONSEQUENT COMPROMISE DECREE DTD 07.03.25 PASSED IN O.S NO. 601/24 BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN WHICH IS GIVEN HEREIN AT ANNX-F.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.601/2024 which is filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking the relief of possession with respect to the suit schedule property therein. Another suit was also filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.236/2024 against the petitioner for the relief of partition and separation possession of the properties mentioned therein.

2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and respondent are blood - related brothers. O.S.No.601/2024 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant for the relief of possession on the strength of the alleged gift deed executed by his grandfather Sri.Thimmegowda in his favour on 25.06.2004 and therefore he claimed the right of the suit schedule property on the basis of the gift deed.

3. Pursuant to the death of Rangegowda who is the father, petitioner has been residing in the suit schedule property in Hassan. There is a dispute with regard to the ownership and possession of the suit schedule property and so also in the other suit for partition between both the parties.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent and his younger brother forced him to agree for a settlement in O.S.No.601/2024 and enter into a compromise based on which the petitioner agreed for the compromise with the respondent, accordingly compromise petition was filed and same came to be decreed on 07.03.2025.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has agreed that he would withdraw the partition suit filed against the petitioner in case the petitioner agrees to the compromise in OS No. 601/2024. But however, after the compromise petition was entered into, the respondent failed to withdraw the O.S.No.236/2024 and continued to prosecute the same. Going further ahead, the respondent in fact got initiated an Execution Petition in Ex.No.47/2025 before the trial Court to execute the decree of the compromise petition.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff has alleged fraud and misrepresentation and that there is a fraud played by the respondent in obtaining the compromise decree before the lok adalath. Therefore, the present petition is filed. Hence, seeks an interim order.

7. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent who is the plaintiff in both suits contends that he has not played any fraud and neither he coerced nor forced the petitioner into filing any compromise petition and there was no terms and conditions with regard to withdrawal of the partition suit as per the compromise decree. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. Secondly, he also contends that the petitioner has preferred Misc.No.1