SMT. GANGAVVA vs VISHWANATH S/O. IRANNA MUCHAKHANDI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026






IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

R
BEFORE

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 106428 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. GANGAVVA
W/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA MUCHAKHANDI,
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KAULAPET, WARD NO.5, BAGALKOT-587101.
…PETITIONER



(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. VISHWANATH S/O. IRANNA MUCHAKHANDI,
AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAULAPET, WARD NO.5, BAGALKOT-587101.

2. SMT. PAVITRA W/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA JANGAMASHETTY,
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GACCINAKATTI COLONY, VIJAYAPURA-586101.

3. PRATIK S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA MUCHAKHANDI,
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. KAULAPET, WARD NO.5, BAGALKOT-587101.

4. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. MAHESH BILAGI,
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. WARD NO.26, GUJJARAGALLI,
NEAR HANUMANTADEVARA TEMPLE,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.

5. SMT. JYOTI W/O. NANDABASU KUBAKADDI,
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GUNDANPALLE R.C.,
TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT-587101.
…RESPONDENTS





K M
SOMASHEKAR
Digitally signed by K M
SOMASHEKAR
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

(BY SRI. ANIKET R. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE JOINT COMPROMISE PETITION DATED
02/07/2026 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL
ORDER/COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 11/07/2026 PASSED IN O.S.
NO.348/2026 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT
(LOK ADALAT BENCH), PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER


1. Gangavva the petitioner herein, being the wife of one
Virupakshappa Muchakhandi, who was arrayed as
defendant No.1 in a suit for partition filed by respondent
No.1 herein in O.S.No.348/2026 on the file of Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot, (Lok-Adalat Bench)
(hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’), produced at
Annexure-C is before this Court being aggrieved by a
purported compromise entered into under the provisions of
Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short
‘CPC’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that:

2.1 The suit properties consisting of six items of immovable
properties including four house properties originally

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


belonged to one Iranna. Said Iranna passed away leaving
behind two sons and two daughters namely,
Virupakshappa, Shobha, Vishwanath and Jyothi.
Virupakshappa had earlier married to one Gangu and had
two children out of the said marriage namely, Pavitra and
Prateek. After the demise of said Gangu, Virupakshappa
had married Gangavva the petitioner herein.

2.2 Vishwanath, the second son of Iranna filed the above suit
in respect of the aforesaid properties, arraying Gangavva
the petitioner herein as defendant No.1, Pavitra and
Prateek being children of Virupakshappa from his first
wife Gangu as defendant Nos.2 and 3 and his two sisters
namely Shobha and Jyoti as defendant Nos.4 and 5
respectively.

2.3 The said suit was filed on 29.06.2026. It was directed to
be listed on 27.08.2026 for issuance of summons. Matter
was pre-poned on 02.07.2026, on which date one SBN
advocate seemed to have filed vakalath for all the
defendants. On the said date, it appears an application
came to be filed without mentioning any provisions of law

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


reporting a purported settlement amongst the parties.
The Trial Court seems to have accepted the terms of the
compromise and has thereafter referred the matter to
Lok-Adalat to be held on 11.07.2026. On 11.07.2026, the
compromise petition has been accepted and the suit has
been decreed accordingly.

3. Being aggrieved by the terms of the compromise,
petitioner herein filed an application under Section 151 of
CPC contending she was not aware of the contents of the
compromise petition that was filed on 02.07.2026. In the
meanwhile, the petitioner has approached this Court by
way of this writ petition.

4. Counsel for petitioner submits that:
4.1 There are several legal and substantive procedural
irregularities in the Trial Court accepting the alleged
compromise. In that, the compromise petition produced at
Annexure-B does not contain signatures of the parties on
all the pages. It is only at the last page parties have
affixed their signatures.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


4.2 He refers to the daily order sheet dated 02.07.2026 of the
Trial Court and contends that though the compromise
petition does not mention any specific provision under
which the same is filed, the Trial Court has taken the same
to be under Section 89 of CPC.
4.3 He refers to the order sheet dated 11.07.2026, which is
purportedly maintained in the Lok-Adalat which bears
signature only of the Judicial Conciliator and not of the
Advocate Conciliator.
4.4 He also refers to paragraph No.6 of the purported
compromise to contend that in terms of the said paragraph
petitioner herein along with defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5
alleged to have given up their entire share, right, title and
interest in the suit property which was never agreed upon.
4.5 Referring to paragraph Nos.20 to 28 of the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Afcons
Infrastructure Ltd. and Another vs. Cherian Varkey
1
Construction Company Ltd. and Others he submits
that the procedure adopted by the Trial Court is erroneous

1
(2010) 8 SCC 24

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


and contrary to the law laid down in the said judgment.
That the procedure required to have been adopted by the
Trial Court under Section 89 of CPC has never been
followed. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

5. Per contra , counsel appearing for the respondents submits
that:
5.1 The compromise was entered into with the complete and
clear knowledge of the petitioner, who had affixed
signature to the compromise petition and had also agreed
to the terms of the compromise to be satisfactory before
the Trial Court and thereafter before the Lok-Adalat.
Therefore, it was not open for her to now challenge the
compromise on the basis of she not being aware of the
contents of the compromise.
5.2 That respondent No.3 being the son of Virupakshappa from
his first wife is ready and willing to provide all the
amenities and maintenance to the petitioner, who is the
second wife of his father and would also give an
undertaking to take care of her during her lifetime.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026



6. Heard. Perused the records.

7. Points that arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether the compromise decree passed in
the instant case is liable to be set aside for non-
compliance of statutory requirement of law?
(ii) Whether the compromise petition is required
to be signed by the parties on all the pages?
Regarding Point No.1:

8. The purported compromise petition produced at
Annexure-B to the writ petition does not specify the
provision under which the same is filed. It only reads as
under:
“ ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ dAn gÁf Cfð ”.

9. In the daily order sheet maintained in the suit, the order
dated 02.07.2026 reads as under:
“Case advanced.

Sri. SBN Advocate files power for defendant No.1 to 5.

Parties and their respective counsel present.

Parties to the suit filed compromise petition under
Section 89 of CPC. Both the counsel have identified their
respective parties and also signatures affixed on
compromise petition.

On enquiry parties have submitted that they have
entered into compromise out of their own volition and
there is no compulsion on them to enter into

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


compromise. The terms of compromise are read over to
the parties and they are not opposed to law. Thus there
is no legal impediment to accept the compromise.

For acceptance of compromise petition case is referred to
Lok-Adalat to be held on 11.07.2026.”


10. Reading of the aforesaid order indicates though the
application without mentioning provision of law is filed
reporting purported compromise, the Trial Court has taken
the same to have been filed under Section 89 of the CPC.
It has apparently read over the contents of the said
compromise to the parties and on being satisfied has even
accepted the same. However, the Trial Court has
thereafter proceeded to refer the compromise petition to
the Lok-adalat to be held on 11.07.2026.

11. The order sheet dated 11.07.2026 purportedly maintained
by the Lok-Adalat reads as under:
“Case taken up before Lok- Adalath.

On 02.07.2026 parties have entered into compromise
and they have filed compromise petition and the terms of
compromise were read over to the parties and they are
not opposed to the law.

Thus there is no legal impediment to accept compromise.
Hence the following;

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


ORDER
The compromise petition filed by plaintiff and defendants
is hereby allowed and same is accepted.

Office is hereby directed to draw award in terms of
compromise petition.

Compromise petition filed by the parties shall form the
part of the award.“


12. Perusal of the above order sheet dated 11.07.2026
indicate only Judicial Conciliator has affixed his signature
and there is no signature of the Advocate Conciliator.

13. Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987 provides for the detailed procedure to be followed if
the matter is referred to the Lok-Adalat. In terms of
sub-section(1) of Section 20, when the parties to a suit
pending before the Court, agree for referring the matter to
Lok-Adalat for settlement and if such Court is prima facie
satisfied that there are chances of such settlement, it shall
refer the case to the Lok-Adalat. ( K.G.Subbaiah v.
2
Shardamma and Another disposed of on 14.08.2026 .)

14. In the instant case, the compromise petition has been filed
on 02.07.2026. The Trial Court itself has enquired with the

2
W.P.No.29824/2017

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


parties regarding their understanding and satisfaction with
regard to the terms and conditions and has even accepted
the same. Thus, the parties in the instant case have not
sought for referring the matter for settlement before the
Lok-Adalat.

15. Another aspect requires consideration in this case is,
whether the compromise petition was indeed filed under
Section 89 or under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. The order
sheet dated 02.07.2026 as noted above indicate the said
compromise petition has been taken to have been filed
under Section 89 of CPC.

16. The procedure to be adopted while recording the
settlement/compromise upon an application filed under
Section 89 of CPC is different and distinct from the one
filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.

17. Section 89 of CPC on the other hand reads as under:
“ 89. Settlement of disputes outside the Court.— (1)
Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements
of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties,
the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and
give them to the parties for their observations and after
receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer
the same for:—
(a) arbitration;
(b) conciliation;
(c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok
Adalat; or
(d) mediation.
(2) Where a dispute has been referred—
(a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996)
shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or
conciliation were referred for settlement under the
provisions of that Act;
(b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to
the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of sub-
section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Services Authority
Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) and all other provisions of that
Act shall apply in respect of the dispute so referred to
the Lok Adalat;
(c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the
same to a suitable institution or person and such
institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat
and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act,
1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were
referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act;
(d) for mediation, the Court shall effect a
compromise between the parties and shall follow such
procedure as may be prescribed.”



18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Afcons
Infrastructure Ltd., (supra) at paragraph Nos.21 and 28
to 30 has clarified the procedure to be followed when an
application under Section 89 of CPC is filed and at
p aragraph No.31 has summarized the procedure to be
adopted under Section 89, which reads as under:
“31. We may summarize the procedure to be adopted by
a court under section 89 of the Code as under:

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


a) When the pleadings are complete, before
framing issues, the court shall fix a preliminary hearing
for appearance of parties. The court should acquaint
itself with the facts of the case and the nature of the
dispute between the parties.
b) The court should first consider whether the case
falls under any of the category of the cases which are
required to be tried by courts and not fit to be referred to
any ADR processes. If it finds the case falls under any
excluded category, it should record a brief order referring
to the nature of the case and why it is not fit for
reference to ADR processes. It will then proceed with the
framing of issues and trial.
c) In other cases (that is, in cases which can be
referred to ADR processes) the court should explain the
choice of five ADR processes to the parties to enable
them to exercise their option.
d) The court should first ascertain whether the
parties are willing for arbitration. The court should inform
the parties that arbitration is an adjudicatory process by
a chosen private forum and reference to arbitration will
permanently take the suit outside the ambit of the court.
The parties should also be informed that the cost of
arbitration will have to be borne by them. Only if both
parties agree for arbitration, and also agree upon the
arbitrator, the matter should be referred to arbitration.
e) If the parties are not agreeable for arbitration,
the court should ascertain whether the parties are
agreeable for reference to conciliation which will be
governed by the provisions of the AC Act. If all the
parties agree for reference to conciliation and agree upon
the conciliator/s, the court can refer the matter to
conciliation in accordance with section 64 of the AC Act.
f) If parties are not agreeable for arbitration and
conciliation, which is likely to happen in most of the
cases for want of consensus, the court should, keeping in
view the preferences/options of parties, refer the matter
to any one of the other three other ADR processes : (a)
Lok Adalat; (b) mediation by a neutral third party

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


facilitator or mediator; and (c) a judicial settlement,
where a Judge assists the parties to arrive at a
settlement.
(g) If the case is simple which may be completed in
a single sitting, or cases relating to a matter where the
legal principles are clearly settled and there is no
personal animosity between the parties (as in the case of
motor accident claims), the court may refer the matter
to Lok Adalat. In case where the questions are
complicated or cases which may require several rounds
of negotiations, the court may refer the matter to
mediation. Where the facility of mediation is not
available or where the parties opt for the guidance of a
Judge to arrive at a settlement, the court may refer the
matter to another Judge for attempting settlement.
(h) If the reference to the ADR process fails, on
receipt of the Report of the ADR Forum, the court shall
proceed with hearing of the suit. If there is a settlement,
the court shall examine the settlement and make a
decree in terms of it, keeping the principles of Order 23
Rule 3 of the Code in mind.
(i) If the settlement includes disputes which are not
the subject matter of the suit, the court may direct that
the same will be governed by Section 74 of the AC Act (if
it is a Conciliation Settlement) or Section 21 of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 (if it is a settlement by a
Lok Adalat or by mediation which is a deemed Lok
Adalat). This will be necessary as many settlement
agreements deal with not only the disputes which are the
subject matter of the suit or proceeding in which the
reference is made, but also other disputes which are not
the subject matter of the suit.
(j) If any term of the settlement is ex facie illegal or
unforceable, the court should draw the attention of
parties thereto to avoid further litigations and disputes
about executability.”

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026



19. Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC read as under:
“3. Compromise of suit .—(1) Where it is proved to the
satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted
wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise
in writing and signed by the parties, or where the
defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or
any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall
order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be
recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance
therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit,
whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement,
compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-
matter of the suit:
Provided that where it is alleged by one party
and denied by the other that an adjustment or
satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide
the question, but not adjournment shall be granted for
the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court,
for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such
adjournment.
Explanation .— An agreement or compromise
which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act,
1872, shall not be deemed to be lawful within the
meaning of this rule.”


20. Apex Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Ojha and
3
others v. Jitendra Chaudhary and Others dealing with
provisions regarding acceptance of compromise petition by
a civil Court filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, at
paragraph No.5.2, has encapsulated certain important
requirement of law to be taken note while recording and
accepting the compromise, which are as under:

3

2026 SCC Online SC 1255

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


“5.2. A perusal of various decisions of this Court reveals
the following aspects regarding compromise decree:
(a) Prior to the 1976 Amendment to the CPC, a
compromise could be either oral or written, and the
Court could decide the same on the basis of general
evidence by the parties, Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj
Goel
(b) After the amendment, it has been clarified that a
compromise must be in writing and must be signed by
the parties, Som Dev v. Rati Ram
(c) The objective of the amendment is to prevent false
and frivolous pleas of compromise having been entered
into between the parties; (Gurpreet Singh supra)
(d) A compromise decree being signed by all parties is a
mandate of the law; (Gurpreet Singh supra)
(e) It has to be voluntarily accepted by parties and once
such acceptance is recorded by the Court, it acquires the
sanctity of the judicial order, Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi
(f) A counsel/duly authorised representative/GPA holders
is permitted to sign a compromise decree on behalf of
those he represents, granted there is express
authorisation or exigency of circumstance (Byram
Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India; Pushpa Devi
Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh,
(g) In accepting a compromise decree, while it is true
that the court merely put a seal of approval, but its role
cannot be reduced to being only a recorder. It has to
apply its judicial mind to the terms to ensure that they
are lawful; (Banwari Lal supra)
(h) A consent decree which is the conclusion of a
compromise, does not operate as a resjudicata for it
does not meet Section 11 (CPC) requirements;
(Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors (India) (P)
Ltd.)
(i) The only remedy available against a compromise
decree is a recall application. A fresh suit or an appeal is
not maintainable against this kind of decree; (Navratan
Lal Sharma v. Radha Mohan Sharma”

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026



21. The Trial Court seems to have lost sight of this cardinal
difference in the provisions of law, namely Section 89 and
Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.

22. Before referring the matter for Lok-Adalat, the Trial Court
should have ensured that exercise of power under Section
89 of CPC would arise only after completion of the
pleadings, before framing of issues, and when the matter
is set down for preliminary hearing for appearance of the
parties. None of these processes seem to have been
followed by the Trial Court.

23. That apart, even assuming that such a compromise was
indeed accepted, the Trial Court ought to have ensured
that a separate order sheet was maintained as held by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Smt.Akkubai
4
vs. Shri Venkatrao and Others and Smt.Renuka W/o
Anand @ Anantsa Bakale vs. Sri. Ramanand S/o
5
Ramkrishnasa Basawa .

4
ILR 2014 KAR 2051
5
Writ Petition No.103766/2018 dated 31.03.2022

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026



24. Necessary also to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Hemantha Kumar vs. R.
6

Mahadevaiah and Others , wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court has indeed approved the procedure of matter being
referred to Lok-Adalat and the application for compromise
to be placed before the Lok-Adalat for consent decree. But
in the instant case, the Trial Court stated to have read
over the terms of the compromise to the parties and has
thus accepted the same. However, only for the purpose of
formal acceptance of the compromise, the matter is
referred for Lok-Adalat. This procedure runs contrary to
the scheme of Act, 1987.

25. If the compromise was accepted before the Court, the
parties would have had an option to challenge the same
before the same Court by filing an application under the
proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. If after acceptance of
the compromise, matter is referred for Lok-Adalat only for
the purpose of formal acceptance, apart from same
creating anomaly, it would also deprive the party of an

6
( 2020) 8 SCC 140

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


opportunity to challenge the compromise before the same
Court. As the compromise decree passed in the Lok-Adalat
is not amenable to be challenged before the Court, which
referred the matter for Lok-Adalat. It is in this context
maintaining of separate order sheet of Lok-Adalat is
recommended.

26. Lok-Adalat exercise its power exclusively under the
provisions of Section 19 and 20 of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987. The same order sheet in the instant
case being maintained by the said Trial Court as well as
the Lok-Adalat has further created such anomaly.

27. That apart the Advocate Conciliator who is one of the
members of the Lok Adalat has not affixed his signature.
In terms of Section 21 of the Act 1987 every award of the
Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of Civil Court. A
decree without signature does not carry its legality and
enforceability. Further, as per Regulation No.17 of the
National Legal Services Authority (Lok-Adalats) Regulation,
2009 when both the parties sign or affix their thumb
impression and the members of the Lok-Adalat counter

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


sign it, only then it becomes award. Even this requirement
has not been complied with.

28. Thus, there has been a substantive legal and procedural
irregularities in the process of recording the settlement
requiring the impugned compromise decree to be set
aside.
Regarding Point No.2:

29. The compromise application produced at Annexure-B
consists of six pages. Page Nos.1 to 5 of the laid document
do not bear the signatures of any of the parties. It is only
in the sixth page, the parties seem to have affixed their
signatures with their photograph affixed thereon. The sixth
page does not contain any of the terms of the compromise
except stating that the parties have agreed to the terms
and have affixed their signature.

30. Though there is no specific requirement under law for
parties to affix their signatures on all the pages of the
compromise petition and their signatures on the last page
in the normal circumstances would be sufficient, it is

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


increasingly noticed that several petitions are being filed
challenging the awards passed in the Lok-Adalats’ on the
grounds of parties not affixing their signatures to the
compromise petition or they not being appraised of the
terms of the compromise.

31. Compromise petition in its true sense is an agreement, a
contract and an instrument containing terms of bargain
between the parties. It evidences and records agreement
of offer and acceptance between the parties. It binds the
party to such contract. Such contract shall be lawful and
shall not be opposed to any law or public policy. It shall be
in writing and signed by the parties.

32. Accepted practice has been affixing signatures or initials of
the parties to a contract on all the pages. This is to avoid
any ambiguity, foul play or to avert the allegations of
alternation or manipulation in the document.

33. Though as noted above there is no legal requirement of
affixing signature on all the pages, when a specific
allegation is made with regard to party not agreeing to the

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


term of the compromise or she/he having been appraised
of the terms of the compromise petition the same would
give rise to a serious question for consideration.

34. As seen in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of
Krishna Kumar Ojha (supra), the role of the Court
accepting the compromise cannot be merely to put a seal
of approval. It is required to apply its judicial mind to the
terms and ensure that they are lawful which also warrants
the terms of the contract be read over to the parties in the
language known to them and to ensure they having
understood what they would be receiving and what they
would be giving up in terms of the compromise.

35. It is not uncommon that in many instances female
members of the joint family are not allotted any shares in
the immovable property on the purported premise of male
members having incurred marriage expenses of the female
members or female members having been given some
gold or silver ornaments without providing any details in
that regard. Ignorance and lack of awareness regarding
statutory entitlement for share in the joint family property

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


amongst illiterate female members has further added to
their owes. In some cases, they have even rendered
homeless and completely dependent at the mercy of male
members of the family.

36. In the instant case, as seen in the terms of the
compromise nothing is allotted to the share of the
petitioner herein. The clause 6 of the compromise indicate
that petitioner herein as defendant No.1 along with
defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 has given up her entire share in
the suit properties. When such a clause is incorporated and
page containing such a clause does not bear the signature
of the party against whom such a clause is sought to be
enforced and further in the absence of any express notings
by the Trial Court regarding such a clause having been
read over to the party in the language known to the party,
the allegation of such party not being made aware of the
terms of the compromise cannot be brushed aside. It is
not that party has been given some share in the properties
or some money in lieu of such share in the properties. It is
a case of complete relinquishment/release of their

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


entitlement in the suit properties. Under these
circumstances, the Trial Courts shall be more circumspect
before accepting the terms of the compromise.

37. Another trend being noticed is that matters are being
compromised/settled before Lok-Adalat within weeks or
months of filing of the suit. In some cases even before
normal service of notices/summons, matters are
advanced, vakalaths are filed on behalf of the defendants
and compromise are arrived at in a hurried manner
through agents/power of attorney holder. In the case of
minor person claiming through guardian without proper
opportunity as required under Order XXXII of CPC. It is
these class of cases which are more prone to challenges as
the one at hand. It is therefore necessary that the Trial
Courts accepting the compromise in the cases of these
nature shall ensure proper identification of the parties and
they having been read over and understood the terms of
the compromise in the language know to them and a
specific noting in this regard be made in the order.

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026



38. It would therefore be appropriate that signatures of the
parties be obtained in all the pages of the compromise
petition, to obliterate any allegation of foul play.

39. Points raised are answered accordingly.

40. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, the following
order:

a) Petition is allowed . The compromise decree dated
11.07.2026 passed in O.S.No.348/2026 on the file of
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot (Lok-Adalat
Bench) produced at Annexure-C is quashed.

b) Matter is remitted to the Trial Court for disposal in
accordance with law.

c) It is open for the parties to re-arrive at settlement, if
they are so advised and if they choose to resolve the
matter amicably.

d) Registry is directed to circulate copy of this order to the
Judicial Academy and to all Secretaries of Taluk and
District Legal Services Authorities of the State along

- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15357
WP No. 106428 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020137042026


with the copies of the judgments and orders/regulations
referred to in the course of this order.

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


SH
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13