Karnataka High Court
Sri B Uttam Kumar vs Smt Geetha Prakash on 17 December, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:52256
CRP No. 548 of 2023
C/W CRP No. 546 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 548 OF 2023
C/W
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 546 OF 2023
IN CRP No. 548/2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. UTTAM KUMAR
S/O. LATE G.H. BANGERA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO 404, 1ST MAIN,
9TH CROSS,
PANCHASHEELAN NAGAR,
MOODALAPALYA,
GOVINDRARAJA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 072.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PUTHIGE R RAMESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MANJUNATH H., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SRI. P.G. PRAKASH
S/O LATE GOVINDA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO. 7, 3RD BLOCK,
4TH MAIN, ROAD, T.S. SHAMANNA ROAD,
NEAR JAIN TEMPLE,
TYAGARAJA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 028.
2. SRI. LAKSHMIPATHY T,
S/O LATE THAMMANANA CHAR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:52256
CRP No. 548 of 2023
C/W CRP No. 546 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 62,
SOUTH END CIRCLE,
NAGASANDRA CIRCLE,
BASAVANAGUDI POST,
BENGALURU - 5600 04
3. SMT. SUJATHA B
D/O LATE G.H. BANGERA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING C/O TANUJA SRINIVAS,
DODDAGUBBI VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BAGALUR ROAD,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU EAST - 560 049
4. SMT. HEMVATHI,
W/O. SRI HARI,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO 17,
KUVEMPUT CROSS ROAD,
JARAGANAHALLI JP NAGAR VI PHASE,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 078
5. SRI. B. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O. LATE G.H. BANGERA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 12/1,
2ND MAIN, IX CROSS,
CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.
6. SMT. MANGALA GOWRI,
D/O LATE G.H. BANGERA,
W/O. SRI RAGHURAM,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 8/1, 4TH MAIN,
IX CROSS, RAMACHADRA AGRAHARA,
CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:52256
CRP No. 548 of 2023
C/W CRP No. 546 of 2023
(BY SMT. KARTHIKA NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VAMSHI KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 TO 5 SERVED- UNREPRESENTED;
V/O/D 22.10.2024, NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2023 PASSED ON IA.III IN OS
NO.1308/2023 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE., REJECTING THE IA NO.III
FIELD UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC.,
IN CRP NO. 546/2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. UTTAM KUMAR
S/O. LATE G.H. BANGERA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO 404, 1ST MAIN,
9TH CROSS,
PANCHASHEELAN NAGAR,
MOODALAPALYA,
GOVINDRARAJA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 072.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PUTHIGE R RAMESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MANJUNATH H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GEETHA PRAKASH
S/O SRI. P.G. PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO. 7, 3RD BLOCK,
4TH MAIN ROAD, T.R. SHAMANNA ROAD,
NEAR JAIN TEMPLE,
TYGARAJA NAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 028.
2. SMT. RAGHINI
W/O SRI. KRIAN KUMAR J.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:52256
CRP No. 548 of 2023
C/W CRP No. 546 of 2023
RESIDING AT NO. 12/1,
2ND MAIN, IX CROSS,
CHAMRAJPET,
BENGALURU 560 018.
3. SRI. B. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE G.H. BANGERA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 12/1,
2ND MAIN, IX CROSS,
CHAMRAJPET,
BENGALURU 560 018.
4. SMT. SUJATHA B.,
D/O LATE G.H. BANGERA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING C/O TANUJA SRINIVAS,
DODDAGUBBI VILLAGE,
BAGALUR HOBLI,
BAGALUR ROAD,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU EAST 560 049.
5. SMT. HEMVATHI,
W/O SRI. HARI,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO. 17,
KUVEMPU CROSS ROAD,
JARAGANAHALLI JP NAGAR VI PHASE,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 078.
6. SMT. MANGALA GOWRI
D/O LATE G.H. BANGERA,
W/O SRI. RAGHURAM,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 8/1,
4TH MAIN, IX CROSS,
RAMACHANDRA AGRAHARA
CHAMRAJPET,
BENGALURU 560 018
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:52256
CRP No. 548 of 2023
C/W CRP No. 546 of 2023
7. SRI. MAHESH KUMAR
S/O SRI. SHIVARAMAIAH S.H.,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. B-8,
AIR STAFF QUARTERS,
5TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
OPP. TO STERLING APARTMENTS,
RMV 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU 560 094
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KARTHIKA NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VAMSHI KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 TO R5 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED;
V/O/D 22.10.2024, NOTICE TO R5, R6 AND R7 IS
D/W)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2023 PASSED ON IA
No. II IN OS No. 1307/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE X
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA No. II FILED UNDER
ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner, who is defendant No. 3, challenges the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3-A read with Order VII Rule 11(d) and Sections 10 and 151 of the CPC.
-6-NC: 2024:KHC:52256 CRP No. 548 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 546 of 2023
2. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 23.09.1996 in favor of the plaintiff's vendor, who is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, is valid. The plaintiff also sought to declare that a compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 5442/2009 is not binding on the plaintiff's title, that the gift deed executed by defendant No. 3 in favor of defendant No. 1 on 25.07.2018 is not binding on the plaintiff, and that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendant No. 2 on 15.12.2022 is also not binding on the plaintiff. Additionally, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction. In the said suit, defendant No. 3 filed an application to reject the plaint, contending that the suit is not maintainable under Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the CPC.
3. Sri Puthige Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner's counsel, submitted that the plaintiff's vendor, represented by Ramakrishnaiah, had earlier suffered a decree in O.S. No. 6534/2011, which challenged the compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 5442/2009. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the decree passed against the vendor is binding on the plaintiff, rendering the present suit not maintainable under Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the CPC. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh (D) through LRs. and others, reported in AIR 2020 SC 2111 (Civil Appeal No. 3961/2010), and M/s. Sree Surya Developers & Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad and others, reported in (2022) Live Law SC 143.
-7-NC: 2024:KHC:52256 CRP No. 548 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 546 of 2023
4. In response, learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff argued that the plaintiff's vendor was not a party to the compromise decree or to O.S. No. 6534/2011. Hence, the suit is not barred under Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the CPC. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Sushila and others v. Vijayakumar and others, reported in ILR 2021 KAR 338.
5. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the following is noted:
Admittedly, the compromise decree was drawn in O.S. No. 5442/2009 on 04.01.2010, wherein certain shares were allotted to the parties involved, including the petitioner, who is a legal representative of the deceased G.H. Bangera, defendant Nos. 5 and 6 in that suit. The compromise decree was challenged by Ramakrishnaiah in O.S. No. 6534/2011, which was dismissed on 13.09.2021, and the dismissal has attained finality. The petitioner contends that Ramakrishnaiah, acting as the GPA holder of Tulsidas Patel, conveyed the subject property in favor of the respondent-plaintiff. However, neither the plaintiff's vendor, Tulsidas, nor his vendor, Bangera, were parties to the compromise decree or to O.S. No. 6534/2011.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Triloki Nath Singh supra at paragraph 21 has ruled as follows:
"21. Indeed, the appellant was not a party to the stated compromise decree. He was, however, claiming right, title and interest over the land referred to in the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:52256 CRP No. 548 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 546 of 2023 stated sale deed dated 6th January, 1984, which was purchased by him from Sampatiya judgment debtor and party to the suit. It is well settled that the compromise decree passed by the High Court in the second appeal would relate back to the date of institution of the suit between the parties thereto. In the suit now instituted by the appellant, at the best, he could seek relief against Sampatiya, but cannot be allowed to question the compromise decree passed by the High Court in the partition suit. In other words, the appellant could file a suit for protection of his right, title or interest devolved on the basis of the stated sale deed dated 6th January, 1984, allegedly executed by one of the party(Sampatiya) to the proceedings in the partition suit, which could be examined independently by the Court on its own merits in accordance with law. The trial Court in any case would not be competent to adjudicate the grievance of the appellant herein in respect of the validity of compromise decree dated 15 th September, 1994 passed by the High Court in the partition suit."
7. The Apex Court in the case of M/s. Surya Developers and Promoters supra at paragraph No. 10.3:
"10.3 In the case of Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364, this Court has observed and held that when the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of limitation."
8. The co-ordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Susheela refererring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Triloki Nath Singh at paragraph Nos. 20, 21, 23 has ruled as follows:
-9-NC: 2024:KHC:52256 CRP No. 548 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 546 of 2023
20. A compromise, is in the nature of a binding contract between the parties, the parties who have entered into a compromise are expected to abide by the terms stated therein. It is for this reason, that R 3A of O 23 creates a bar for those persons who are parties to the compromise from filing a subsequent suit on the ground that the compromise obtained by them was unlawful. In other words, a binding contract entered into between two parties, in a Court of law, cannot be annulled or impugned by the filing of a separate suit.
21. It is also to be noticed here that a compromise between two parties is accepted by the Court, only if it is found to be lawful. Obviously, once the compromise is accepted as being lawful, it would be a travesty of justice to permit the parties to the compromise to file a separate suit contending that it was unlawful. I am therefore of the view that the argument of the Learned Counsel lacks merit.
23. As could be seen from the above, that is not the scenario in this case. In the instant case, the plaintiff was not claiming any rights under any of the persons who were parties to the compromise petition. His claim was based on his independent right to seek for a share in the suit properties, which he had acquired by birth, and not from or through any of the parties to the compromise. I am therefore, of the view that the judgments relied upon by the Learned Counsel do not support his submissions. As a consequence, this revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
9. The legal principles established in the aforementioned decisions are summarized as follows:
i. A compromise decree, being in the nature of a binding contract, cannot be annulled or impugned by filing a separate suit
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52256 CRP No. 548 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 546 of 2023 by the parties to the compromise (Triloki Nath Singh, para 21; Smt. Susheela, para 20).
Such a decree is accepted by the court only if it is lawful. Once accepted, parties to the compromise cannot subsequently claim it was unlawful (Smt. Susheela, para 21).
ii. Non-parties to a compromise decree may independently seek relief based on their own rights, title, or interest in the property, as such claims can be adjudicated on their merits (Triloki Nath Singh, para 21; Smt. Susheela, para 23).
However, they cannot challenge the validity of the compromise decree itself.
iii. A compromise decree relates back to the date of institution of the original suit between the parties. Any subsequent transferee or claimant deriving rights from a party to the suit is bound by the decree (Triloki Nath Singh, para 21).
iv. Claims based on independent rights are not barred by the existence of a compromise decree, provided the claimant is not deriving rights through parties to the compromise (Smt. Susheela, para 23).
10. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh (D) through LRs. is not applicable to the present case as the factual matrix is distinguishable.In the instant case, the subject property was not
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52256 CRP No. 548 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 546 of 2023 conveyed to the petitioner by Ramakrishnaiah, who had challenged the compromise decree unsuccessfully in O.S. No. 6534/2011. Instead, the property was conveyed by Tulsidas, represented by Ramakrishnaiah as his General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder. This distinction is crucial because the petitioner is claiming rights through Tulsidas, who was neither a party to the compromise decree in O.S. No. 5442/2009 nor a litigant in O.S. No. 6534/2011.
11. In view of the above analysis, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications are rendered infructuous.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE PSJ