HANAMANT S/O DUNDAPPA ANGADAGERI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS WIFE vs SATHYAVVA W/O GURAPPA DADDENNAVAR

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17492
WP No. 104521 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020109962024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 104521 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

HANAMANT S/O DUNDAPPA ANGADAGERI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS WIFE

1. SMT. ANASAVVA
W/O LATE HANUMANT ANGADAGERI
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND COOLIE,
R/O. SIDDAPUR, TQ. BILAGI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587117.

2. IRAPPA
S/O DUNDAPPA ANGADAGERI
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SIDDAPUR, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
NOW RESIDING AT YADAHALLI,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587313.
…PETITIONERS










(BY SRI. Y.R. JOGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
1. SATHYAVVA W/O GURAPPA DADDENNAVAR
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SIDDAPUR, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587117.

2. SHANTAVVA D/O DUNDAPPA ANGADAGERI
AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SIDDAPUR, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587117.

3. GURAVVA @ GANGAVVA W/O RUDRAPPA PATRI
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SIDDAPUR, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587117.

4. MUTTAVVA W/O NIGAPPA JANGI
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SIDDAPUR, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587117.


Digitally signed by
SAROJA HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17492
WP No. 104521 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020109962024


5. PADIYAVVA W/O DURGAPPA JEEVAJI
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SIDDAPUR, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587117.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. SANJAY Y. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.51/2012 DATED
09/01/2013 AND FINAL DECREE IN FDP NO.6/2013 DATED
21/10/2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
BILAGI, I.E. ANNEXURE-C AND E BY ISSUING WRIT IN THE NATURE
OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER



1. Petitioners in this petition, challenging the compromise
decree that was arrived at before the Lokadalat on
18.10.2021 in FDP No.6/2013.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that husband
of petitioner No.1, namely Hanamant who was defendant
No.2 in the said FDP was suffering from HIV infection.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17492
WP No. 104521 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020109962024


Petitioner No.2 who was defendant No.4 in the said FDP
was out of station. That the compromise has been thus
entered into in the absence of the said persons. He refers
to the order sheet produced at pages 56 to 61 of the writ
petition and submits that portion of the compromise
decree has been signed by the judicial member while the
other portion is signed by the non-judicial member.
Further no separate order sheet has been maintained
which runs contrary to the judgment of this Court in the
case of Smt.Akkubai Vs Shri.Venkatrao and others
reported in 2014 ILR (KAR) 2051. He further submits
that the said compromise has been entered into
detriment to the rights of the parties.

3. On a query by this Court, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that in terms of the compromise,
th
1/8 share in the suit property has been allotted to all
the parties. The grievance of the petitioners however is
that though the daughters had given up their share, they
also have been granted share. Therefore, the petitioners
are aggrieved by the said compromise Decree.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17492
WP No. 104521 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020109962024



4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
submits that there is no relinquishment of any nature
whatsoever by the daughters. The compromise has been
arrived at, distributing the properties equally amongst all
the family members. Therefore, the petitioners cannot
have any grievance.

5. Heard and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute of the fact that the suit in
O.S.No.51/2012 had been filed amongst the brothers
and sisters, being children of one Dundappa Angadageri
and preliminary decree in the said suit was passed on
th
09.01.2013 granting 1/8 share each in the suit
properties to all the children while mother of the parties
has given up her share in their favour. Final decree
proceedings were initiated in FDP No.6/2013 in which
compromise was entered into by filing a compromise
petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

7. The compromise petition reads as under:

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17492
WP No. 104521 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020109962024


J¥sï.r.¦.£ÀA. 06/2013

•
ªÉÄ ¢ªÁt £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀÄ ©Ã¼ÀV EªÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è

1) ¸ÀvÀåªÀé UÀA. UÀÄgÀ¥Àà zÀqÉØ£ÀߪÀgÀ
ªÀAiÀiÁ: 46 ªÀµÀð,G:-ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ®¸À
•• ••
¸Á ¹zÁÝ¥ÀÇgÀ vÁ ©Ã¼ÀV,
ºÁ° ªÀ¹Û : ªÀÄÄzÉÝéºÁ¼À
•
f ©eÁ¥ÀÇgÀ, ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀÄ.
--CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ

«gÀÄzÀÞ


1) ¤AUÀªÀé UÀA. zÀÄAqÀ¥Àà CAUÀqÀUÉÃj.
ªÀAiÀiÁ: 75 ªÀµÀð.G:-ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ®¸À.
¸Á|| ¹zÁÝ¥ÀÇgÀ vÁ|| ©Ã¼ÀV.
ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀÄ
--JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ

¢ªÁt ¥ÀæQæAiÀiÁ ¸ÀA»vÉ DzÉñÀ 23 ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 3 gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è gÁf Cfð :

EzÀgÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÄ: £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ
¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ C¥À¸Ávï gÁf Cfð K£ÉAzÀgÉ;

1] CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ HgÀ »jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ d£ÀvÁ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀAzsÁ£ÀPÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ gÁfAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ gÁf «ªÀgÀ F
PɼÀV£ÀAwgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

2] zÁªÁ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ KPÀvÀæ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¦vÁæfðvÀ
D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ C£ÀÄߪÀzÀ£ÀÄß G¨sÀAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀëUÁgÀgÀÄ M¦àPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ.

3] ¸ÀzÀgÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ £ÀA 1 EªÀ¼ÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G½zÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ £ÀA.2
jAzÀ 4 gÀªÀgÀ d£ÀPÀ vÁ¬Ä EzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀgÀ zÁªÁ D¹ÛUÀ¼À°è CAzÀgÉ ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
d«ÄãÀzÀ°è DvÀ¼À ¥Á°UÉ §AzÀ »¥ÉàAiÀÄ£ÀÄß J®è CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J®è
JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ £ÀA.2 jAzÀ 4 gÀªÀjUÉ vÀ£Àß ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛ¼É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß
JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ £ÀA.1 M¦àPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛ¼É ºÁUÀÆ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ £ÀA.1 EªÀ¼À£ÀÄß 2£ÉÃ
CfðzÁgÀ¼ÁzÀ ±ÁAvÀªÀé EªÀ¼ÀÄ eÉÆÃ¥Á£À-dvÀ£À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀzÁV M¦àPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛ¼É.

4] ¸ÀzÀgÀ zÁªÁ D¹Û d«ÄãÀ j.¸À.£ÀA.153/1©/1 PÉëÃvÀæ 6J-23UÀÄ d«ÄãÀÄ EzÀÄÝ
EzÀÄ ¥ÀǪÀð ¥À²ÑªÀÄ GzÀݪÁzÀ ¥ÀnÖ EzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀgÀ d«ÄãÀzÀ°è GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ 1£Éà ¥ÀnÖ

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17492
WP No. 104521 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020109962024


CAzÀgÉ PÉëÃvÀæ 0-37UÀÄAmÉ CfðzÁgÀ £ÀA.1 ¸ÀvÀåªÀé EªÀ¼À ¥Á°UÉ. CzÀPÉÌ ºÉÆA¢ 2£ÉÃ
¥ÀnÖ CfðzÁgÀ £ÀA.2 ±ÁAvÀªÀé EªÀ½UÉ PÉëÃvÀæ 1J-1UÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀPÉÌ ºÉÆA¢ 3£ÉÃ
¥ÀnÖ CfðzÁgÀ £ÀA.3 UÀÄgÀªÀé @ UÀAUÀªÀé EªÀ½UÉ PÉëÃvÀæ 0-37UÀÄAmÉ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀPÉÌ
ºÉÆA¢ 4£Éà ¥ÀnÖ CfðzÁgÀ £ÀA.4 ªÀÄÄvÀÛªÀ EªÀ½UÉ PÉÃvÀæ 0-37 UÀÄAmÉ ºÁUÀÆ
CzÀPÉÌ ºÉÆA¢ 5£Éà ¥ÀnÖ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ £ÀA.2 ºÀtªÀÄAvÀ EvÀ¤UÉ PÉëÃvÀæ 0-37UÀÄAmÉ
ºÁUÀÆ CzÀPÉÌ ºÉÆA¢ 6£Éà ¥ÀnÖ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ £ÀA.3 ¥ÀrAiÀĪÀé EªÀ½UÉ PÉëÃvÀæ 0-
37UÀÄAmÉ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀPÉÌ ºÉÆA¢ PÉÆ£ÉUÉ zÀQëtPÉÌ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ £ÀA.4 FgÀ¥Àà EvÀ¤UÉ
PÉëÃvÀæ 0-37UÀÄAmÉ F vÀgÀ£ÁV ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ zÁªÁ D¹Û
d«ÄãÀ GvÁgÉAiÀÄ°è CªÀgÀªÀgÀ PÉëÃvÀæPÀÌ£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR°¹PÉƼÀî®Ä
M§âjUÉƧâgÀÄ M¦àPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ.

5] CzÉà jÃw zÁªÁ D¹Û ¹zÁÝ¥ÀÇgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ «.¦.¹ £ÀA.377 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 377/C CAvÁ
EzÀÄÝ «.¦.¹ £ÀA.377 gÀ°è CfðzÁgÀ £ÀA.1 jAzÀ 4 gÀªÀgÀ ¥Á°UÉ, CzÉÃjÃw
«.¦.¹ £ÀA.377/C EzÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ £ÀA.2 jAzÀ 4 gÀªÀgÀ ¥Á°UÉ ºÀAaPÉ
ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ D §UÉÎ G¨sÀAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀëUÁgÀgÀÄ M¦àPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ.

6] CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä-vÀªÀÄä PÉÆÃlð RZÀð£ÀÄß vÁªÉÃ
¨sÀj¹PÉƼÀî®Ä M¦àPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ. F jÃwAiÀiÁV gÁfAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ gÁfAiÀÄAvÉ
DzÉñÀªÁUÀ®Ä «£ÀAw CzÉ.

F ªÉÄÃ¯É C¥À¸Ávï gÁfAiÀÄ°è §gÉzÀ ¸ÀAUÀwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄUÉ N¢ ºÉýzÀÄÝ
CªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤d ºÁUÀÆ ¸Àj EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ.


8. Perusal of the compromise petition indicate all the parties
having affixed their thumb impression. So also the order
sheet at page 60 indicate thumb impression of all the
parties being represented by their respective counsels.
The only grievance of the petitioners, is that the
daughters had apparently given up their share and yet
th
they have been granted 1/8 share. It is not the case of
the petitioners that they have not been granted or
allotted any share. The shares as noted above have been

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17492
WP No. 104521 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020109962024


allotted in furtherance to the decree which has remained
unaltered.

9. In that view of the matter, this Court do not see any
reason to show any indulgence in the matter. Petition
Rs.10
dismissed with cost of ,000/- payable to "High
Court Legal Services Committee", Dharwad Bench.




Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE



SBN
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 35