Karnataka High Court
Mr Mohammed Murtuza vs Mr.V.C.Govardhan on 8 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.53622 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR.MOHAMMED MURTUZA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. ABDUL RAHAMAN,
RESIDING AT NO.82, GONIBEEDU VILLAGE & POST,
MUDIGERE TALUK,
CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR.V.C.GOVARDHAN
S/O CHANDREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VADINA KUDIGE VILLAGE,
HIREBYELE POST, KALASA HOBLI,
CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R.PATEL, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. A.MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDERS DATED 11.07.2016 AT ANNEX-A DISMISSING I.A.10
FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3A R/W
SEC. 151 & 152 OF THE CPC BY THE PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, CHIKKAMAGALUR IN O.S.89/2013 THEREBY
RECALLING THE COMPROMISE RECORDED IN THE ABOVE
CASE, AND TO DECIDE THE SUIT ON MERITS, BY ALLOWING
THIS W.P. SO AS TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER FILED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AND ETC.,
2
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner being the defendant in OS.No.89/2013, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM,, Chikmangalur has challenged an order dated 11.07.2016 passed therein, by which an application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3-A R/w Section 151 and 152 of Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.
2. The suit in OS.No.89/2013 was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale deed dated 12.02.2013. The suit was contested. Later, the parties agreed to settle the dispute amicably and thus the case was referred to Lok-Aadalat. A compromise petition was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure before the Lok-Aadalat by which the dispute was settled between the parties and the suit was disposed of on 23.10.2013. Long thereafter i.e., on 07.12.2015 an application was filed by the defendant under order XXIII Rule 3-A R/w Section 151 and 152 of Code of Civil Procedure contending that the suit property was granted to him by the Tahsildar, Mudigere on 3 17.02.2004, which was followed by a Saguvali chit dated 05.06.2004. He contended that, the grant was subject to non-alienation for a period of 15 years and therefore he submitted that the compromise could not have been accepted. He claimed that the compromise was forcibly imposed on him by the plaintiff. The trial Court in terms of its order impugned in this writ petition, rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compromise could not have been recorded by the Lok-Aadalat as on that day, the defendant was not in a position to enter into an compromise in respect of the suit property as there was a clear bar against alienation. He however did not dispute his signature and also the fact that he had appeared before the Lok-Aadalat and admitted the compromise.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the ground urged by the defendant to set aside the compromise is not maintainable as there are provisions in the land grant rules which provide for 4 condonation of any violation of the conditions attached to the grant. He therefore submitted that the order passed by the Lok-Aadalat, be not disturbed.
5. The defendant did not dispute the fact that he appeared before the Lok-Aadalat and admitted of the compromise before the Lok-Aadalat. He also did not dispute the terms of the compromise, the defendant has now attempted to resile from the compromise contending that the compromise had the effect of violating a term of the grant, should not have been accepted.
It is noticed that pursuant to the compromise recorded by the Lok-Aadalat, the plaintiff has obtained a sale deed on 24.06.2015. Hence, the compromise entered into before the Lok-Aadalat cannot be disturbed now. However, it is open for the petitioner/defendant to take appropriate steps to challenge the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, if the law permits.
Sd/-
JUDGE PK