Karnataka High Court
Adiveppa S/O Hanamappa Bhajantri vs Shantabai D/O Hanamantha on 8 December, 2022
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
WP No. 100379 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 100379 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
ADIVEPPA S/O HANAMAPPA BHAJANTRI
AGE 61 YEARS, OCC.- COOLI,
R/O NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT,
TQ DIST BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MRUTYUNJAYA S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHANTABAI D/O. HANAMANTHA BHAJANTRI,
AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SECTOR NO.62, NAVANAGAR BAGALKOT,
TQ DIST BAGALKOT 587113.
2. ARUNDHATI D/O. CHANDRAKANT MAREGUDDIKAR,
AGE 37 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O SECTOR NO.62, NAVANAGAR BAGALKOT,
TQ DIST BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GIRISH YADAWAD, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) (BY SRI RAKESH M.BILKI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2014 AND COMPROMISE DECREE PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LOK ADALAT/COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT AT BAGALKOT IN O.S.NO.318/2018 VIDE -2- WP No. 100379 of 2021 ANNEXURE-N AND P, RESPECTIVELY ANDRESTORE THE SUIT IN OS NO.318/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT AT BAGALKOT FOR ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS PETITION PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER.
Smt. Shantabai D/o.Hanamantha Bhajantri claiming that Sri Adiveppa S/o.Hanamanth Bhajantri had executed an agreement in her favour, instituted a suit seeking for specific performance. In the said suit, Sri Adiveppa was stated to be represented by one Smt.Arundhati D/o.
Chandrakant Mureguddikar.
2. This suit was referred to mediation and a compromise petition was filed and on the basis of the compromise petition, a compromise decree was also drawn up. Under the compromise decree, the defendant agreed to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement of sale.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this entire process was a clear case of fraud. He submitted -3- WP No. 100379 of 2021 that the petitioner/defendant was in no way related to Smt Arundhati and had not executed any Special Power of Attorney in his favour. He submitted that Smt Arundhati was none other than the daughter of the plaintiff and they had created a Special Power of Attorney and had secured the compromise decree. He therefore submitted that the entire decree was fraudulent and was required to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the deposition of Smt Shantabai, the plaintiff in which she has stated as follows :
"D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁUÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀiÁr®è CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA.1 E§âgÀÄ PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ MAzÀÄ Rjâ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÉÝÃªÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA.1 E§âgÀÄ PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ zÉñÀ¥ÁAqÉ ªÀQîgÀ ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃV Rjâ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ rQæ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉýPÉÆArzÉÝÃªÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. zÉñÀ¥ÁAqÉ ªÀQîgÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £ÀA.1 gÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ zÁªÉ zÁR® ªÀiÁr rQæ ªÀiÁr¹zÁÝgÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."-4- WP No. 100379 of 2021
5. As could be seen from the said deposition, the plaintiff-Shantabai clearly admitted that she and her daughter had approached a counsel and had secured a compromise decree. In the light of this categorical admission of Shantabai, the compromise decree executed by her daughter Arundhati on behalf of Adiveppa cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.
6. Having regard to the fact that a decree was obtained by unfair means by the mother and daughter it would be necessary to saddle the respondents with costs of Rs.25,000/-, which is to be deposited before this Court within a period of eight weeks from today. On such deposit being made, the same shall be made over to the petitioner.
Writ petition is accordingly allowed.
sd JUDGE CKK