Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-E THE AWARD/ORDER DTD.09.09.2017 AND THE DECREE SIGNED ON 22.09.2017 IN O.S.NO.87/2012 WHICH WAS PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO DECIDE THE CASE ON MERIT & ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the award dated 09.09.2017 and the decree dated 22.09.2017 passed in OS.No.87/2012 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, (Lok Adalat), Shikaripura (for short 'the trial Court').

Smt.Keerthana Swamy, learned counsel for Sri.Karumbaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is defendant No.1 in a suit filed by respondent No.1 seeking partition and declaration. It is submitted that in the said suit, by playing fraud and forging the petitioner's signature and photographs, a compromise petition was created and presented before the Lok Adalat, but on the said date of the alleged compromise, the petitioner was not present. However, the conciliator accepted the compromise petition and decreed the suit. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being the brother of respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled to an equal share i.e. 1/2 share in the suit schedule property. However, under the compromise petition only 2 acre 30 guntas were allotted to him, which is not an equitable distribution. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the filing of the compromise petition before the Lok Adalat and came to know of the same only in January 2020, when he learned that the suit had been decreed based on such compromise. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to set aside the decree on the ground of fraud. Hence, she seeks to allow the petition.

Per contra, Sri.Rajashekhar K., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Guruprasad Hegde, learned counsel for Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, supports the decree of the Lok Adalat and submit that the petitioner had appeared in person and his photograph is affixed to the compromise petition. It is submitted that the conciliator, during the conciliation proceedings verified the compromise, recorded the presence of the parties, and obtained their signatures on the order sheet and thereafter, the compromise was recorded and accepted. It is further submitted that the present petition is merely an afterthought.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 vehemently submits that respondent No.2 is a bonafide purchaser of a portion of the suit schedule property measuring 1 acre 34 guntas from the petitioner. Despite being aware that the extent was reduced to 1 acre 29 guntas in the compromise petition, the petitioner accepted a compromise to avoid the litigation and now the petitioner is taking a different stand in the petition, which is an afterthought. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record.

Respondent No.1 herein has filed OS.No.87/2012 before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura seeking the relief of partition and declaration. In the said suit, the petitioner herein was defendant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein was defendant No.2. The material on record indicates that respondent No.2 had purchased a portion of the suit schedule property from the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 29.09.2010 to the extent of 1 acre 34 guntas. The records further indicate that the parties to the suit agreed to amicably resolve the dispute and accordingly, entered into a compromise by