Karnataka HC Rejects Family’s Challenge to Partition Compromise, Says Daughters Had Not Relinquished Their Shares

In brief

The question

1. Whether the compromise decree in FDP No. 6/2013 warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 because of the alleged absence of two parties, procedural irregularities, or detriment to the petitioners’ rights.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the compromise decree.

It also directed

It ordered the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad Bench.

01Facts

A preliminary decree in O.S. No. 51/2012 allotted each of the deceased Dundappa Angadageri’s children a 1/8 share in the suit properties; the mother gave up her share in their favour.

In the ensuing final decree proceedings, FDP No. 6/2013, the parties entered into a compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC on 18 October 2021, providing for division of the properties.

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 6–7

The petitioners challenged the compromise decree, alleging that petitioner No. 1’s husband, a party to the FDP, was suffering from HIV and petitioner No. 2 was out of station when the compromise was made; they also questioned the manner in which the order sheet was maintained and asserted that the daughters had relinquished their shares but were nevertheless allotted shares.

p. 3 · ¶ 1–3

The respondents denied any relinquishment by the daughters and maintained that the compromise distributed the properties among the family members.

p. 4 · ¶ 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the compromise decree in FDP No. 6/2013 warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 because of the alleged absence of two parties, procedural irregularities, or detriment to the petitioners’ rights.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 1–2

ii.2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief on the ground that daughters who had allegedly relinquished their shares were allotted shares under the compromise.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3–4, 8

03Law Applied

The compromise was recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides the procedural basis for recording a lawful compromise in a suit or proceeding.

p. 4 · ¶ 6 · pp. 4–6 · ¶ 7

The petitioners invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge the decree.

p. 2

They also relied on Smt. Akkubai v. Shri Venkatrao and Others, 2014 ILR (KAR) 2051, in support of their objection concerning the order sheet; the judgment records that submission but does not set out or apply a separate rule from that decision.

p. 3 · ¶ 2

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the compromise petition bore the thumb impressions of all parties and that the order sheet likewise recorded their thumb impressions, with the parties represented by their respective counsel.

p. 6 · ¶ 8

The Court further observed that the petitioners did not claim that they had been denied a share; the shares had been allotted consistently with the preliminary decree, which remained unaltered.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 8

In those circumstances, the Court found no basis to interfere, notwithstanding the petitioners’ allegations regarding absence, procedure, or the daughters’ shares.

p. 7 · ¶ 9