SHRI RUDRAGOUDA MALAGOUDA KALAYI vs SHRI BALAGOUDA MALAGOUDA KALAYI

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15056
WP No. 105613 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020147772023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI


WRIT PETITION NO.105613 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:




SHRI. RUDRAGOUDA MALAGOUDA KALAYI
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. KOCHARI VILLAGE,
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591340.


…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SANTOSH S.HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI. BALAGOUDA MALAGOUDA KALAYI
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KOCHARI VILLAGE,
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BAGALKOT-591340.






2. SMT. KEMPAWWA W/O. MALAGOUDA KALAYI
AGE. 80 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KOCHARI VILLAGE,
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591340.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SUNDANDA P.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT.CHITRA M.GOUNDALKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H
M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.11.04
11:34:55 +0530



THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION,
ORDER PASSED BY THE COMPROMISE DECREE PASSED IN
O.S.NO.121/2018 DATED 06/01/2022 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUKKERI VIDE ANNEXURE-E, INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY;
AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15056
WP No. 105613 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020147772023


ORAL ORDER


1. The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to
quash the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.121/2018
dated 06.01.2022 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has filed suit in
O.S.No.121/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri, for
the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit
property. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner and
respondents amicably settled their disputes. Accordingly, the
suit properties were divided between the parties and a
compromise was entered into between them on 06.01.2022. It
is submitted that as per the compromise filed by the petitioner
and respondents, one of the suit properties bearing
R.S.No.103/19, measuring 38 guntas, out of which 19 guntas
situated at Kochari village, Hukkeri Taluk, Belagavi District,
came to be allotted to the petitioner to the extent of 19 guntas.

3. It is further submitted that the portion of 19 guntas allotted to
respondent No.1 has a public road towards its eastern
boundary. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 is not

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15056
WP No. 105613 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020147772023


permitting the petitioner to have access to the said public road.
It is further contended that there is no other alternative access
to the portion of the property allotted to the petitioner.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that, despite several
requests, respondent No.1 has refused to provide access to the
public road. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
approached this Court seeking, inter alia, to set aside the
compromise entered into between the parties and the
consequential compromise decree.

5. Respondent No.1 has entered appearance and resisted the writ
petition. It is contended that the writ petition is not
maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court with regard to a challenge to a compromise
recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC').

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits
that the petitioner cannot challenge the compromise decree by
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that, if the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15056
WP No. 105613 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020147772023


petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the compromise,
such challenge has to be made before the Court which recorded
the compromise.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
R.Rajanna V/s. S.R.Vennkateswamy and others , reported
in (2014) 15 SCC 471 , particularly paragraphs 10 to 12
thereof, wherein it has been held that the Court which recorded
the compromise alone is competent to examine and determine
the validity of such compromise and that the same cannot be
challenged before the writ Court.

8. The relevant portion of the judgment relied upon by learned
counsel for the respondent No.1 is reproduced hereinunder:
“11. It is manifest from a plain reading of the above
that in terms of the proviso to Order 23 Rule 3 where
one party alleges and the other denies adjustment or
satisfaction of any suit by a lawful agreement or
compromise in writing and signed by the parties, the
Court before whom such question is raised, shall decide
the same. What is important is that in terms of
Explanation to Order 23 Rule 3, the agreement or
compromise shall not be deemed to be lawful within the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15056
WP No. 105613 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020147772023


meaning of the said Rule if the same is void or voidable
under the Contract Act, 1872. It follows that in every
case where the question arises whether or not there has
been a lawful agreement or compromise in writing and
signed by the parties, the question whether the
agreement or compromise is lawful has to be determined
by the court concerned. What is lawful will in turn
depend upon whether the allegations suggest any
infirmity in the compromise and the decree that would
make the same void or voidable under the Contract Act.
More importantly, Order 23 Rule 3-A clearly bars a suit
to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise
on which the decree is based was not lawful. This implies
that no sooner a question relating to lawfulness of the
agreement or compromise is raised before the court that
passed the decree on the basis of any such agreement or
compromise, it is that court and that court alone who
can examine and determine that question. The court
cannot direct the parties to file a separate suit on the
subject for no such suit will lie in view of the provisions
of Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC. That is precisely what has
happened in the case at hand. When the appellant filed
OS No. 5326 of 2005 to challenge the validity of the
compromise decree, the court before whom the suit
came up rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
on the application made by the respondents holding that
such a suit was barred by the provisions of Order 23
Rule 3-A CPC. Having thus got the plaint rejected, the
defendants (respondents herein) could hardly be heard
to argue that the plaintiff (appellant herein) ought to

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15056
WP No. 105613 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020147772023


pursue his remedy against the compromise decree in
pursuance of OS No. 5326 of 2005 and if the plaint in
the suit has been rejected to pursue his remedy against
such rejection before a higher court.”

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the pleadings of the
parties and the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the
respondents.

10. The judgment relied upon by the respondent No.1 squarely
covers the issue involved in the present case. It has been
unequivocally held that a compromise entered into under Order
XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC cannot be challenged before the writ
Court and that any such challenge has to be made before the
Court which recorded the compromise.

11. In the present case, the compromise between the petitioner
and the respondents was recorded by the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Hukkeri, in O.S.No.121/2018 on 06.01.2022. If the
petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the compromise or
the compromise decree, the appropriate remedy is to approach
the very same Court which recorded the compromise, in
accordance with law.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15056
WP No. 105613 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020147772023



12. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present writ petition is not
maintainable.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not
maintainable .

11. It is needless to observe that the petitioner is at liberty to
challenge the compromise before the appropriate forum, in
accordance with law.

Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE


PMP para Nos.1 and 2
VB para Nos.3 to end
CT:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3