Karnataka High Court
Mahadevamma W/O Saabanna vs Mallappa S/O Ningappa Devakar on 23 November, 2023
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8800
WP No. 206811 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 206811 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MAHADEVAMMA W/O SAABANNA,
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLd,
2. MONAPPA @ MOUNESH S/O SAABANNA,
AGE:23 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
3. MONAMMA D/O SAABANNA,
AGE:21 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
ALL R/O VILLAGE BELGERI,
TQ & DIST:YADGIR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NARESH V. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH 1. MALLAPPA S/O NINGAPPA DEVAKAR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGE:41 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE BELGERI,
TQ & DIST:YADGIR.
2. SUNITHA D/O BHIMANNA DEVAKAR,
AGE:18 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
3. KUMARI INDRAMMA D/O BHIMANNA,
AGE:12 YEARS, U/G OF RESPODENT NO.4.
4. VENKATAMMA W/O BHIMANNA,
AGE:31 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8800
WP No. 206811 of 2015
ALL R/O BELGERI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST:YADGIR.
5. BHIMANNA S/O NINGAPPA DEVAKAR,
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O BELGERI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST:YADGIR.
6. SHARNAPPA S/O NINGAPPA DEVAKAR,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O BELGERI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST:YADGIR.
SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRs.
I) MALLAMMA W/O SHARNAPPA,
AGE:58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
II) MALLAPPA S/O SHARNAPPA,
AGE:28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
III) CHANDAPPA S/O SHARNAPPA,
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
IV) TAYAMMA D/O SHARNAPPA,
AGE:14 YEARS(MINOR) U/G OF
LR NO.1 MALLAMMA.
ALL R/O BELGERI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST:YADGIR.
7. NARSAPPA S/O NINGAPPA DEVAKAR,
AGE:55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE BELGERI, TQ & DIST. YADGIR.
8. AYYAWWA W/O NINGAPPA DEVAKAR,
AGE:75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE BELGERI, TQ & DIST. YADGIR.
9. MAREWWA W/O NINGAPPA DEVAKAR,
AGE:72 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE BELGERI,
TQ & DIST:YADGIR.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8800
WP No. 206811 of 2015
10. SRI.M.M.GUTTEDAR,
AGE:30 YEARS, OCC:ADVOCATE,
R/O YADGIRI,
TQ & DIST:YADGIRI-585 202.
11. SRI.K.B.ANGADI, AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC:ADVOCATE, R/O YADGIRI,
TQ & DIST:YADGIRI-585 202.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH PATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI.GANESH NAIK, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4;
SRI.PRASHANT S. KUMMAN, ADV. FOR R5 & R6(I) TO R6 (IV);
SRI.SANTOSH R. BELAMGI, ADV. FOR R10 AND R11;
NOTICE TO R7 AND R9 IS SERVED;
V/O DATED 13.08.2020 STEPS TO R8 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING ANNEXURE-F, DATED 19.11.2011
PASSED BY THE LOK ADALAT, YADGIR DISTRICT ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Though this matter was called out in the pre-lunch session, there was no representation on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Again when the matter is called out in the post- lunch session, there is no representation on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Therefore, left with no other -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8800 WP No. 206811 of 2015 alternative, I deem it appropriate to decide the matter on the basis of the material available on record.
3. The petitioners who are the legal representatives of defendant No.5 in O.S. No.6/2016 and legal representatives of Respondent No.6 in R.A. No.41/2010, are before this Court challenging the compromise decree dated 19.11.2011 in R.A. No.41/2010 passed by the Lok Adalat, Yadgiri vide Annexure-F.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that originally O.S. No.6/1996 was filed by Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein for partition and separate possession against Respondent Nos.1,5,6, 7, 8 & 9 and petitioners herein in respect of five agricultural lands situated at Belgeri village, Yadgir taluk and district. The said suit came be decreed allotting 1/24th share in the suit properties to the plaintiffs therein by judgment and decree dated 17.7.2010. Aggrieved by the said judgment & decree, Respondent No.1 herein filed R.A. No.41/2010 before the District & Sessions Court, Yadgiri. It is further case of the petitioners that notices of the said appeal were not served on them and they have not engaged the services of an advocate, but some person impersonated and forged them and vakalath came to be filed before the District Court on their behalf -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8800 WP No. 206811 of 2015 without their consent. The first appellate Court referred the matter to Lok Adalat, wherein compromise petition was filed and the appeal came to be decreed in terms of the compromise petition.
5. It is further case of the petitioners that during the last week of December when the respondents tried to lay claim to the suit lands by trying to occupy prime lands, ignoring the petitioners' claim over the said lands, the petitioners came to know that there was compromise entered into between the parties before the Lok Adalat without their knowledge. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for copies of all the documents relating to the Regular Appeal No.41/2010 and realized that the compromise petition was executed behind their back forging their signatures. In the meanwhile, the petitioners filed Writ Petition Nos.202815-817/2014 and though the said Petitions came to be dismissed, liberty was reserved to the petitioners to file fresh Petition laying proper foundation. Hence the present Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the compromise decree dated 19.11.2011 in R.A. No.41/2010 passed by Lok Adalat, Yadgiri vide Annexure-F on -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8800 WP No. 206811 of 2015 the ground that the compromise petition executed behind their back forging their signatures.
6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners never entered into any compromise nor did they engage any counsel and sign the compromise petition before the Lok Adalat, Yadgiri in R.A. No.41/2010. It is further contended that no notice was issued from the District Court to the petitioners herein. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are minors in the suit proceedings have attained majority, but however they were not served with any notice from the District Court and also they were shown as minors in R.A. No.41/2010. Learned counsel contends that some mischief is played by the respondents to deprive the valuable rights of the petitioners and deliberately the petitioner No.1 is impersonated by some other person and the fraudulent person has been made to appear as petitioner No.1 and admit the alleged terms of the compromise, which were never agreed or consented to by the petitioners. Therefore, he contends that the compromise petition is fraudulent and concocted one, which is deliberately made to deprive the petitioners of their valuable right by impersonation and playing fraud & forgery. -7-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8800 WP No. 206811 of 2015
7. On perusal of the order sheet, it is seen that this Court vide order dated 10th January 2023 referred the matter to the forensic expert to give a opinion as to whether the admitted thumb impression found in the vakalath dated 2.12.2015 belonging to petitioner No.1/Mahadevamma is tallying with disputed thumb impressions in the compromise petition and vakalath in R.A. No.41/2010 on the file of the District Judge, Yadgiri. In fact, this Court directed the Registry to send the documents to Truth Labs, Bengaluru for forensics expert's opinion.
8. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the Court by the forensic expert vide letter dated 22.6.2023 that instead of sending the thumb impressions of petitioner No.1/Mahadevamma, thumb impressions of Mallamma were sent and having noticed the mistake, this Court marked the disputed thumb impressions of Mahadevamma in the compromise petition and directed the Registry to send the original records for expert's opinion. This Court also directed the expert to examine the disputed thumb impressions of petitioner no.1/Mahadevamma by comparing the same with the -8- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8800 WP No. 206811 of 2015 admitted thumb impression and submit the report within one month.
9. In pursuance to the orders passed by this Court, 'Truth Labs. Bengaluru' has given the expert's opinion. As per the expert's opinion dated 20.09.2023, the disputed left thumb impressions of Mahadevamma on the original compromise petition were marked as 'D1', 'D2' and 'D3' and the disputed left thumb impression of Mahadevamma on the vakalath in R.A. No.41/2010 was marked as 'D4' and the admitted left thumb impression of Mahadevamma on the original vakalath filed in W.P. No.206811/2015 was marked as 'A'. On examination of the disputed left thumb impressions of Mahadevamma at D1, D2, D3 and D4 and admitted left thumb impression at 'A' , the expert has given the opinion as under:
"OPINION I The disputed left thumb impressions marked as 'D1', 'D3' and 'D4' are not identical with the admitted left thumb impression marked as 'A'.
OPINION II
The remaining one disputed left thumb
impression marked as 'D2' is unfit for comparison -9- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8800 WP No. 206811 of 2015 as it is smudged, indistinct and does not reveal sufficient number of clear ridge details. "
10. As per the opinion expressed by the forensic expert, the left thumb impressions marked as D1, D3 and D4 are not identical with the admitted left thumb impression marked as 'A' and are made by the different finger of different person and further disputed left thumb impression marked as 'D2' is unfit for comparison as it is smudged, indistinct and does not reveal sufficient number of clear ridge details.
11. In view of the above report furnished by the forensic expert, it is apparently clear that the admitted left thumb impression found in the vakalath dated 2.12.2015 belonging to Mahadevamma is not tallying with disputed left thumb impressions in the alleged compromise petition and vakalath in R.A. No.41/2010 and they are not identical and are made by different finger of different person.
12. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the opinion of forensic expert, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner No.1 is impersonated by some other person and the fraudulent person has been made to appear as petitioner No.1
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8800 WP No. 206811 of 2015 and admit the alleged terms of the compromise in R.A. No.41/2010, which were never agreed or consented to by the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that the first appellate referred the matter to Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat accepted the compromise petition and decreed the appeal in terms of the compromise. Therefore, the impugned decree passed by the Lok Adalat is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the first appellate Court.
13. In view of the above discussion, I deem it appropriate to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned Decree dated 19.11.2011 in R.A. No.41/2010 passed by the Lok Adalat, Yadgiri vide Annexure-F, is hereby set aside.
iii) The matter is remitted to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Yadgiri for deciding the appeal
- R.A. No.41/2010 afresh by issuing notice and affording sufficient opportunity to all the parties, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE GSS