IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.10337 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. G SURENDRA GUPTA S/O LATE GOVINDA SETTY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

2. SMT. SHANTHALAKSHMI W/O SURENDRA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO.232, NEW NO.16-16/1, MOHIDDIN SAB ROAD ITTIGEGUDU, NAZARBAD MOHALLA MYSORE - 577 010 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF AND:

KARNATAKA SMT. KAVITHA VINOD W/O LATE VINOD C, D/O G. SURENDRA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.190 GROUND FLOOR, 6^TH CROSS MADEGOWDA CIRCLE, 2^ND STAGE, HEBBALA, MYSORE - 570 017 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING OF IMPUGNED FINAL DECREE DRAWN BY THE HON'BLE 2^ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSORE IN O.S NO.1558/2022 DATED 08/07/2023 (SIGNED ON 23.01.2024) VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

This caption petition is filed assailing the compromise recorded by the Lokadalath between a daughter/respondent and petitioners/parents.

2. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.

No.1558/2022 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. The present petitioners, who were arrayed as defendants in the said suit, entered appearance through counsel and contested the proceedings by filing their written statement. During the pendency of the suit, both parties, with a view to amicably resolve their inter se disputes, jointly sought reference of the matter to the Lok Adalat.

3. Pursuant to such reference, the parties appeared before the Lok Adalat and filed a joint compromise petition, which was duly signed by the plaintiff, defendants, and their respective learned counsel. The Lok Adalat, upon due verification of the terms and conditions set out in the compromise petition, and being satisfied that the settlement arrived at between the parties was lawful and voluntary, proceeded to accept the same. In terms of the compromise, the present petitioners, who are the parents, agreed to allot Schedule ‘D’ property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Accordingly, a decree came to be drawn in terms of the compromise on 08.07.2023, as reflected in Annexure-C.

4. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants calling in question the very status of the respondent/plaintiff by disputing her claim of being the adopted daughter of the petitioners. Various grounds are urged in the petition seeking to dislodge the compromise decree.

5. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that under the compromise decree, Schedule ‘D’ property has already been allotted to the respondent/plaintiff. The primary grievance now projected by the petitioners is that despite such allotment, the respondent is allegedly interfering with and encroaching upon Schedule ‘A’ to ‘C’ properties, which were retained by the petitioners under the compromise.

6. In the light of the aforesaid submission, it is evident that there is no substantial or bona fide challenge to the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.1558/2022 by the Lok Adalat. It is a settled principle that when parties to a partition suit voluntarily opt for settlement and seek reference to the Lok Adalat, and when such settlement culminates in a lawful compromise decree, the same attains finality and is to be accorded a higher degree of sanctity. This Court has consistently held that such compromise decrees cannot be lightly interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the absence of any cogent material indic