Karnataka High Court
Smt. Mayawwa W/O Basappa Maladinni vs Smt. Siddawwa W/O Pandappa Mayannavar on 30 January, 2020
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.107719 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
1. SMT. MAYAWWA W/o. BASAPPA
MALADINNI, AGE: 45 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TALUK: GOKAK
DISTRICT: BELGAUM.
2. SMT. YALLAWWA W/O.BASAPPA
ARABHAVI, AGE: 43 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O.MUGALIHAL, TALAK: RAMADURG
DISTRICT: BELGAUM.
3. SMT. TANGEWWA W/O.SOMAPPA
TOTAGATTI, AGE: 41 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O.SALAHALLI, TALAK: SAUNDATTI
DISTRICT: BELGAUM.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SHRIKANT T.PATIL AND
SRI. ROHIT S.PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. SMT. SIDDAWWA W/O. PANDAPPA
MAYANNAVAR, AGE: ABOUT 54 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O.HOSUR, TALAK: RAMADUG
DISTRICT: BELGAUM.
2
2. SMT.RUKMAAWWA W/O. SIDDAPPA
MALADINNITI, AGE: 55 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O.KOUJALAGI, TALAK: GOKAK
DISTRICT: BELGAUM.
3. SHRI. UDDAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA
MAYANNAVAR, AGE: 36 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O. HOSUR, TALAK: SAUNDATTI
DISTRICT: BELGAUM.
4. SMT.PARAWWA W/O.YALLAPPA
METAGUD, AGE: 39 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O.MUDENOOR, TALUK
RAMADURG, DIST: BELGAUM.
5. SMT. KAMALAWWA D/O.PANDAPPA
MAYANNAVAR, AGE: 33 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O.HOUSE, TALAK: SAUNDATTI
DISTRICT: BELGAUM.
6. SMT. YANKAPPA
S/O.HANAMAPPA MAYANNAVAR
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, R/O.HOUSE
TALAK: SAUNDATTI
DISTRICT: BELGAUM.
7. SMT. LAXMAWWA
W/O.TAMMAPPA JATAGOND
AGE: 45 YEARS OCCUPATION:
HOUSE OLD WORK, R/O.SALAHALLI
TALUK: RAMADURG
DIST: BELGAUM.
8. SMT.UDDAWWA
W/O.TAMMANNA KILADAR
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSE HOLD WORK
3
R/O.KOUJALAGE, TALUK: GOKAK
DIST: BELGAUM.
9.THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE RADDI CO-OP. BANK LTD
BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE COMPROMISED DECREE DATED 17.11.2006 IN
O.S.NO.43/2001 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
SAUNDATII BEFORE LOKADALAT SAUNDATTI BE PASSED VIDE
ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the compromise decreed dated 17.11.2006 in O.S.No.43/2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti before the Lok Adalath, Saundatti.
2. Petitioners are plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S.No.43/2001 filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and defendant No.3 entered into a compromise before the Lok Adalath 4 and accordingly a decree was passed on 17.11.2006. The petitioners aggrieved by the said compromise decree dated 17.11.2006 are before this Court in this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the compromise decree passed on 17.11.2006 in O.S.No.43/2001 is wholly illegal and it is not passed in the presence of the petitioners/plaintiffs 1 to 3. It is his submission that the petitioners were not paid the amount of Rs.50,000/- as agreed under the compromise petition. He further submits that they were under the impression that they would also get their share in the suit schedule property. As the compromise was recorded in the absence of petitioners No.1 to 3, they were not aware of the compromise decree passed by the 5 trial Court. Thus, he submits that compromise decree is unsustainable and requires to be set aside.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the material on record, I am of the view that the petitioners would not be entitled for any discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reasons:
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the compromise is not recorded in the presence of the petitioners and the said contention is liable to be rejected for the reason that on perusal of Annexure-D, Order Sheet maintained in O.S.No.43/2001 discloses that the petitioners/plaintiffs No.1 to 3 were present before the Lok Adalath on 20.01.2006 and the order sheet reads as follows:
"1 jAzÀ 4£Éà ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ 3£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ ºÁdgÀ EzÁÝgÉ. gÁfà CfðAiÀÄ ¸ÀAUÀwUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß G¨sÀAiÀÄ ¥ÀPëÀUÀ½UÉ N¢ w½¹ ºÉüÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. CzÀgÀ°ègÄÀ ªÀ ¸ÀAUÀwUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß CªÀgÀÄ 6 M¦àPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ. 3£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÉ vÀ¯Á 50¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß PÉÆnÖzÁÝV ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀPÉÌ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ºÀt ªÀÄÄnÖzÀ §UÉÎ M¦àPÆ É ArzÁÝgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁªÁzÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À°èAiÀÄ vÀªÄÀ ä ºÀPÄÀ ÌUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß 3£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ ©lÄÖPÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ."
7. The above portion of the order sheet records receipt of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioners herein on relinquishing their rights over the suit schedule property in favour of 3rd defendant. Further, the compromise petition at Annexure-B is signed by all the plaintiffs and counsel for the plaintiffs. The petitioners have entered into compromise with their open eyes and have attested their thumb impression to the compromise decree. Counsel for the petitioners has also signed the compromise petition, which means that the petitioners were aware of the terms of compromise and have put their thumb impression. Thus, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that the petitioners were not aware of the terms of the compromise.
7
8. More over, the above writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The compromise decree is passed on 17.11.2006 whereas the present writ petition is filed before the Court on 24.11.2018, i.e., more than 12 years after passing of the compromise decree. No explanation is forthcoming from the writ petition with regard to delay in approaching this Court. A person whose rights are affected is expected to approach the Legal Forum within a reasonable time.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHANKARA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS. MR. PRABHAKAR & OTHERS reported in (2011) 5 SCC 607, at para-54 has held as follows:
"The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is now well settled. They are:
(1) There is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the Court must 8 necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts.
(2) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners.
(3) The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy.
(4) No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall be decided on its own facts.9
(5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a person who sleeps over his right is not entitled to seek relief after a decade, settled position cannot be settled after more than a decade.
10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-*