Karnataka High Court
Smt P A Shakunthala vs Sri A Nanjunda Reddy on 1 August, 2018
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.54696 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
Between:
1. Smt. P.A.Shakunthala
W/o. late A.Chinna Reddy,
Aged about 61 years,
2. K.C.Sreenivasa Reddy
S/o. late A.Chinna Reddy,
Aged about 31 years,
3. K.C.Drakshayini
D/o. late A.Chinna Reddy,
Aged about 41 years,
4. K.C.Sudha
D/o. late A.Chinna Reddy,
Aged about 37 years,
5. K.C.Vanitha
D/o. late A.Chinna Reddy,
Aged about 33 years,
Petitioners No.1 to 5 are all
residing at Kadugodi,
Near Govt. Middle School,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
2
The petitioners No.1, 3 to 5 are
Represented by their P.A.Holder,
K.C.Sreenivasa Reddy
the petitioner No.2 herein. ... Petitioners
(By Sri.C.Babu, Advocate)
And:
1. Sri. A.Nanjunda Reddy,
S/o. late Abbaiah Reddy,
Since dead by his LRs.
a) Smt. P.A.Kanthamma
W/o. late A.Nanjunda Reddy,
Since dead by her LRs.
the Respondents
1(b) to (f) herein.
b) Sri. N.Udaya Prasad,
S/o. late A.Nanjunda Reddy,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.134, Car Street,
Kadugodi, Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru - 560 067.
c) Smt. N.Savitha,
D/o. late A.Nanjunda Reddy,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at No.134,
Car Street, Kadugodi,
Bengaluru - 560 067.
d) Smt. N.Usha,
W/o. V.Somashekar,
Aged about 52 years,
Residing at No.167,
3
Near Raju Colony, Yamaloor,
Bengaluru - 560 037.
e) Smt. N.Ramadevi,
W/o. Chandrasekhar,
Aged about 48 years,
No.14/12, Flat No. S-3,
Akruthi Akshaya Apartment,
Murphy Road, Ulsoor,
Bengaluru - 560 008.
f) Smt. N.Umadevi,
W/o. Jayakumar,
Aged about 48 years,
No.14/12, Flat No.S-3,
Akruthi Akshaya Apartment,
Murphy Road, Ulsoor,
Bengaluru - 560 008.
2. Dodda Nanjunda Reddy,
S/o. late Abbaiah Reddy,
Since dead by his LRs.
a) Sri. K.N.Jayarama Reddy,
S/o. Dodda Nanjunda Reddy,
Aged about 70 years,
b) Sri. K.N.Aswathanarayana Reddy,
S/o. late Dodda Nanjunda Reddy,
Aged about 60 years,
c) Smt. Vinodha,
D/o. late K.N.Chandra Reddy,
Aged about 42 years,
d) Kum. C.Sonia,
D/o. late K.N.Chandra Reddy,
Aged about 24 years,
4
e) Kum. C.Shilpa Reddy,
D/o. late K.N.Chandra Reddy,
Aged about 22 years,
f) Smt. Jayalakshmamma,
W/o. late K.N.Mohan Reddy,
Aged about 39 years,
g) Kum. M.Tejaswini,
D/o. late K.N.Mohan Reddy,
Aged about 22 years,
h) Sri. M.Sidhartha,
S/o. late K.N.Mohan Reddy,
Aged about 20 years,
i) Sri. K.N.Sathish Reddy,
S/o. late Dodda Nanjunda Reddy,
Aged about 48 years,
j) Sri. K.N.Vijaya Reddy,
S/o. late Dodda Nanjunda Reddy,
Aged about 36 years,
Sl.Nos.2(a) to (j) are all
R/at Kadugodi Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk,
Bengaluru District.
The respondents No.2(a), 2(c) to (j)
are represented by their P.A. Holder,
K.N.Aswathanarayana Reddy,
the Respondent No.2(b) herein. ... Respondents
This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records
5
in F.D.P.No.08/2010 pending on the file of the learned II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru. Set aside the order dated 29.11.2016, passed
by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru
Rural District, Bengaluru in F.D.P.No.08/2010 by allowing
the I.A. dated 02.12.2014 filed by the respondents 1(a) &
1(c) to (f) under section 151 of code of civil procedure and
re-calling the order dated 18.10.2014 vide Annexure-A and
consequently dismiss the said I.A. and etc.,
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary
Hearing this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court challenging the order dated 29.11.2016 passed in FDP.No.08/2010 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners and respondents have entered into a compromise as per Annexure - C which was recorded by the trial court by its order dated 18.10.2014 and the said compromise is recalled at the instance of respondent Nos.1(a) and (c) to (f). The petitioners herein are 6 respondents and respondent Nos.1(a) to (f) herein are petitioners in FDP.No.8/2010 and parties would be referred to as per their ranking in the Final Decree Proceedings (FDP).
3. Petitioner Nos.1(a) and (c) to (f) are represented by petitioner No.1(b)-Sri.N.Udaya Prasad, who signed the compromise petition on behalf of petitioner Nos.1(a) and (c) to (f). Petitioner Nos.1(a) and (c) to (f) in FDP have filed an application under section 151 of CPC to recall the order dated 18.10.2014 alleging that they have not authorized petitioner No.1(b) to enter into compromise on their behalf. The said application is allowed by the trial Court by order dated 29.11.2016, which is impugned in this writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents and perused the writ papers.
5. The counsel for the petitioners/respondents in FDP submits that the trial Court could not have allowed the 7 application filed under section 151 of CPC to recall the order dated 18.10.2014, wherein, the trial Court had recorded compromise of the parties to the final decree proceedings in FDP No.08/2010. He further submits that once having signed the compromise and accepted, it is not open for the petitioners to file application to recall, recording of compromise.
6. Annexure - C to the writ petition is compromise petition filed before the trial court in FDP No.08/2010. On perusal of said compromise petition, it is seen that petitioner No.1(b) represented petitioner Nos.1(a) and (c) to (f). It is specific case of the petitioner Nos.1(a) & (c) to (f) in the FDP No.08/2010 (who are respondents in the writ petition), that they have not authorized Sri. N.Udaya Prasad, who is petitioner No.1(b) to enter into compromise. It is alleged in the application that the matter stood posted to 30.10.2014, but it was got advanced to 18.10.2014. That advancing of the final decree proceedings from 30.10.2014 to 18.10.2014 was 8 not informed to the mother and sisters [petitioner Nos.1(a) and (c) to (f)] of Sri.N.Udaya Prasad. It is stated in the application filed under Section 151 of CPC to recall compromise decree, that under General Power of Attorney, no power is given to either to enter into compromise with the respondents or to give up any of the properties included in the suit and which is a subject matter of the preliminary decree. Under preliminary decree the petitioner Nos.1(a) to (f) were entitled for 1/3rd share in all the suit schedule properties. It is further stated that petitioner No.1(b) brother of petitioner Nos.1(a) and (c) to
(f) has filed joint memo deleting item No.5 and 9 in the 'A' schedule property and item No.6 to 8 in the 'B' schedule properties, without taking consent and without there being power to enter into compromise. The trial Court on consideration of the said application, has come to the conclusion that said compromise is against the interest of petitioner Nos.1(a) and (c) to (f) in the FDP proceedings. The trial Court has noted that on perusal of joint memo, on 9 behalf of petitioner Nos.1(a) and (c) to (f), only petitioner No.1(b)-Sri.N.Udaya Prasad has signed. The trial Court noted that compromise entered into between the parties is not lawful and against the interest of the parties, which could be recalled. The petitioners herein have not produced any material in support of their contentions that petitioner Nos.1(a) and (c) to (f) in FDP proceedings were aware of compromise and participated in the negotiation. This Court in the case of Smt. Lakshmamma and ors vs Sri. T.H.Ramegowda and ors reported in ILR 2015 Kar 4024 has held that application under Section 151 of CPC is maintainable to recall the order recording compromise, if the order is passed against the interest of the parties and if fraud has been played. From the facts of the present case also the compromise recorded on 18.10.2014 is against the interest of the parties. Further, as the petitioners No.1(a) and (c) to (f) contended that they had not authorized petitioner No.1(a) to enter into any compromise, thus trial court is justified in recalling the 10 order dated 18.10.2014. The trial Court has not committed any error or illegality while allowing the application filed under Section 151 of CPC to recall the order dated 18.10.2014. Petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
7. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMJ/KTY