- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 44778 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1. SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O VEERANAN @ KAPPANNA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. SRI VEERAN JAN GOWDA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. SRI MANJUNATH S Digitally signed S/O SIDDAPPA by ANNAPURNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS G Location: High Court of 4. SRI ANAND KUMAR S Karnataka S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS THE PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 4 ARE R/AT KULUME KEMPALINGANAHALLI SONDEKOPPA POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 5. SMT DUNDAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/A LAKKENAHALLI VILLAGE KULANAHALLI POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 6. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O RAMAIAH D/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A HAROKETHANAHALLI VILLAGE DASANPURA HOBLI, MAKLI POST BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 7. SMT GOWRAMMA W/O SHANAKRAPPA D/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A KULANAHALLI POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 8. SRI SEETHARAMA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 9. SRI B S KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS THE PETITIONERS NO.8 AND 9 ARE R/AT BUDIHAL VILLAGE NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

- 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 SMT CHENNAMMA W/O DASAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 10. SMT GANGALAKSHMAMMA D/O CHENNAMMA R/A NO.42, GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT WARD NO.18, SUBHASH NAGAR NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 11. SMT SIDDAMMA D/O CHENNAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A HANCHIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. GANGAIAH S/O DODDADUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS 2. SRI LOKESH S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 3. SMT CHIKKAMMA W/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 4. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKADUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 5. SRI ERAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKADUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 6. SRI BYRAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKADUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 7. SRI ANNADANAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKADUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 8. SRI H M SIDDAPPA S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 8 ARE R/AT HANCHIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 9. SRI RANGASWAMAIAH S/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 10. SMT GANGAMMA S/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 11. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 12. SRI PUTTARAMAIAH S/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 13. SRI NAGARAJA S/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

TEH RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 13 ARE R/AT MALLARABANAVADI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 14. SMT GANGAMMA W/O LATE ANDANAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT HANCHIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARSHA D. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 R4, 6, 7, 12 ARE SERVED V/O DT: 21.06.2021 NOTICE TO R13 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 10.03.2022, WP DISMISSED AGAINST R9, 10 AND R14 VIDE ORDER DATED 02.02.2023, WP AGAINST DECEASED R3, R5, R8 AND R11 STANDS ABATED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DTD 11.07.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 CIVIL JUDGE AT NELAMANGALA, IN FDP NO.3/2011, VIDE ANNX-J.CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners calling in question the order passed by the Final Decree Proceedings Court on an application filed by respondent No.3 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), seeking recall of the compromise decree dated 03.03.2011 passed in FDP.No.3/2011.

2. Respondent No.3 – Chikkamma was defendant No.9 in the suit and respondent No.3 in FDP.No.3/2011. Her grievance before the Final Decree Proceedings Court was that the petitioners and certain other parties had entered into a compromise by including therein properties which were her self-acquired properties, without notice to her and without bringing to the notice of the Court the adjudication rendered by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 this Court in RFA.No.187/1994 connected with RFA.No.522/1998, whereby respondent No.3 had been held entitled to a 1/7th share. 3. The application filed by respondent No.3 under Section 151 of CPC was enquired into by the Final Decree Proceedings Court. Upon consideration of the material on record, the Court below recorded a finding that the compromise had been brought about by suppressing material facts and by playing fraud upon the Court as well as respondent No.3. 4. The finding recorded by the Final Decree Proceedings Court is founded, inter alia, on the fact that the entitlement of respondent No.3 to a 1/7th share had already been determined by this Court. Despite the same, the parties who entered into the compromise proceeded to seek dispensation of notice to respondent No.3 and other parties and secured a compromise decree without placing the aforesaid material before the Court.

5. The Final Decree Proceedings Court has, therefore, recorded a specific finding that the Court was kept in the dark while the compromise was being recorded. It is on this premise - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 that the compromise decree was recalled and the final decree proceedings were restored to file. 6. The principal contention urged before this Court is that the compromise was recorded by the Lok Adalat and, therefore, the same could not have been recalled by the Final Decree Proceedings Court. Though the said contention has been specifically urged in the memorandum of petition, the proceedings of the Lok Adalat have not been produced. 7. This Court, therefore, called for and examined the records. The records clearly belie the contention urged by the petitioners. The compromise was recorded in FDP.No.3/2011 itself and was not an award passed by the Lok Adalat. 8. The compromise petition produced before this Court, which forms the basis for drawing the final decree, clearly indicates that the compromise was presented in the pending final decree proceedings and was recorded by the Court in open Court. There is nothing on record to indicate that the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat or that the compromise was recorded by the Lok Adalat. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017

9. The final decree drawn pursuant to the said compromise is produced at Annexure-E. The order-sheet as well as the final decree make it abundantly clear that the compromise petition was entertained in the pending FDP and that the parties were permitted to enter into compromise in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for some of the parties. 10. Therefore, the very foundation of the petitioners’ challenge, namely, that the compromise was recorded by the Lok Adalat, is factually incorrect. 11. Once the compromise is found to have been recorded by the Final Decree Proceedings Court itself, the objection that the said Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 151 of CPC does not merit acceptance. More importantly, the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked to sustain an order or decree which is demonstrated to have been obtained by practising fraud upon the Court. 12. In the present case, the Final Decree Proceedings Court, after conducting an enquiry, has recorded a categorical - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 finding that material facts were suppressed and that the compromise was secured without notice to respondent No.3, despite her entitlement to a 1/7th share having already been determined by this Court. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the said finding suffers from perversity or that the Court below has exercised its jurisdiction contrary to law.

13. A compromise cannot be permitted to operate to the prejudice of a party who was not before the Court and whose adjudicated rights were sought to be dealt with behind her back. The Final Decree Proceedings Court was, therefore, justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of CPC to recall the compromise decree upon being satisfied that the same had been procured by suppression of material facts and by fraud. 14. The distinction sought to be drawn by the petitioners on the premise that the compromise was an award of the Lok Adalat is wholly misplaced. The records establish that the compromise was recorded by the Final Decree Proceedings Court in FDP.No.3/2011. Consequently, the proceedings before - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 this Court do not involve a challenge to an award of the Lok Adalat. 15. Viewed from any angle, no jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity is demonstrated in the order under challenge. The Final Decree Proceedings Court was justified in recalling the compromise decree and restoring FDP.No.3/2011 to file. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 44778 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1. SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O VEERANAN @ KAPPANNA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. SRI VEERAN JAN GOWDA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. SRI MANJUNATH S Digitally signed S/O SIDDAPPA by ANNAPURNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS G Location: High Court of 4. SRI ANAND KUMAR S Karnataka S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS THE PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 4 ARE R/AT KULUME KEMPALINGANAHALLI SONDEKOPPA POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 5. SMT DUNDAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/A LAKKENAHALLI VILLAGE KULANAHALLI POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 6. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O RAMAIAH D/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A HAROKETHANAHALLI VILLAGE DASANPURA HOBLI, MAKLI POST BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 7. SMT GOWRAMMA W/O SHANAKRAPPA D/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A KULANAHALLI POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 8. SRI SEETHARAMA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 9. SRI B S KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS THE PETITIONERS NO.8 AND 9 ARE R/AT BUDIHAL VILLAGE NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

- 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 SMT CHENNAMMA W/O DASAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 10. SMT GANGALAKSHMAMMA D/O CHENNAMMA R/A NO.42, GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT WARD NO.18, SUBHASH NAGAR NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 11. SMT SIDDAMMA D/O CHENNAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A HANCHIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. GANGAIAH S/O DODDADUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS 2. SRI LOKESH S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 3. SMT CHIKKAMMA W/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 4. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKADUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 5. SRI ERAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKADUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 6. SRI BYRAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKADUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 7. SRI ANNADANAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKADUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 8. SRI H M SIDDAPPA S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 8 ARE R/AT HANCHIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 9. SRI RANGASWAMAIAH S/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 10. SMT GANGAMMA S/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 11. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 12. SRI PUTTARAMAIAH S/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 13. SRI NAGARAJA S/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

TEH RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 13 ARE R/AT MALLARABANAVADI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 14. SMT GANGAMMA W/O LATE ANDANAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT HANCHIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARSHA D. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 R4, 6, 7, 12 ARE SERVED V/O DT: 21.06.2021 NOTICE TO R13 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 10.03.2022, WP DISMISSED AGAINST R9, 10 AND R14 VIDE ORDER DATED 02.02.2023, WP AGAINST DECEASED R3, R5, R8 AND R11 STANDS ABATED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DTD 11.07.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 CIVIL JUDGE AT NELAMANGALA, IN FDP NO.3/2011, VIDE ANNX-J.CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners calling in question the order passed by the Final Decree Proceedings Court on an application filed by respondent No.3 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), seeking recall of the compromise decree dated 03.03.2011 passed in FDP.No.3/2011.

2. Respondent No.3 – Chikkamma was defendant No.9 in the suit and respondent No.3 in FDP.No.3/2011. Her grievance before the Final Decree Proceedings Court was that the petitioners and certain other parties had entered into a compromise by including therein properties which were her self-acquired properties, without notice to her and without bringing to the notice of the Court the adjudication rendered by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 this Court in RFA.No.187/1994 connected with RFA.No.522/1998, whereby respondent No.3 had been held entitled to a 1/7th share. 3. The application filed by respondent No.3 under Section 151 of CPC was enquired into by the Final Decree Proceedings Court. Upon consideration of the material on record, the Court below recorded a finding that the compromise had been brought about by suppressing material facts and by playing fraud upon the Court as well as respondent No.3. 4. The finding recorded by the Final Decree Proceedings Court is founded, inter alia, on the fact that the entitlement of respondent No.3 to a 1/7th share had already been determined by this Court. Despite the same, the parties who entered into the compromise proceeded to seek dispensation of notice to respondent No.3 and other parties and secured a compromise decree without placing the aforesaid material before the Court.

5. The Final Decree Proceedings Court has, therefore, recorded a specific finding that the Court was kept in the dark while the compromise was being recorded. It is on this premise - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 that the compromise decree was recalled and the final decree proceedings were restored to file. 6. The principal contention urged before this Court is that the compromise was recorded by the Lok Adalat and, therefore, the same could not have been recalled by the Final Decree Proceedings Court. Though the said contention has been specifically urged in the memorandum of petition, the proceedings of the Lok Adalat have not been produced. 7. This Court, therefore, called for and examined the records. The records clearly belie the contention urged by the petitioners. The compromise was recorded in FDP.No.3/2011 itself and was not an award passed by the Lok Adalat. 8. The compromise petition produced before this Court, which forms the basis for drawing the final decree, clearly indicates that the compromise was presented in the pending final decree proceedings and was recorded by the Court in open Court. There is nothing on record to indicate that the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat or that the compromise was recorded by the Lok Adalat. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017

9. The final decree drawn pursuant to the said compromise is produced at Annexure-E. The order-sheet as well as the final decree make it abundantly clear that the compromise petition was entertained in the pending FDP and that the parties were permitted to enter into compromise in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for some of the parties. 10. Therefore, the very foundation of the petitioners’ challenge, namely, that the compromise was recorded by the Lok Adalat, is factually incorrect. 11. Once the compromise is found to have been recorded by the Final Decree Proceedings Court itself, the objection that the said Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 151 of CPC does not merit acceptance. More importantly, the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked to sustain an order or decree which is demonstrated to have been obtained by practising fraud upon the Court. 12. In the present case, the Final Decree Proceedings Court, after conducting an enquiry, has recorded a categorical - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 finding that material facts were suppressed and that the compromise was secured without notice to respondent No.3, despite her entitlement to a 1/7th share having already been determined by this Court. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the said finding suffers from perversity or that the Court below has exercised its jurisdiction contrary to law.

13. A compromise cannot be permitted to operate to the prejudice of a party who was not before the Court and whose adjudicated rights were sought to be dealt with behind her back. The Final Decree Proceedings Court was, therefore, justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of CPC to recall the compromise decree upon being satisfied that the same had been procured by suppression of material facts and by fraud. 14. The distinction sought to be drawn by the petitioners on the premise that the compromise was an award of the Lok Adalat is wholly misplaced. The records establish that the compromise was recorded by the Final Decree Proceedings Court in FDP.No.3/2011. Consequently, the proceedings before - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:48991 WP No. 44778 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010177312017 this Court do not involve a challenge to an award of the Lok Adalat. 15. Viewed from any angle, no jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity is demonstrated in the order under challenge. The Final Decree Proceedings Court was justified in recalling the compromise decree and restoring FDP.No.3/2011 to file. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6