Karnataka HC Tells Trial Court To Accept Siblings’ Partition Compromise, Says Revenue Records Alone Were No Bar

The petitioner, plaintiff in a partition suit against his sisters, sought separate possession of properties bearing CTS Nos. 1260C and 1260B1.

The parties, represented by their respective General Power of Attorney holders, filed a written compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure after resolving the dispute through mediation.

The trial court rejected the compromise because the parties had not established their title through title deeds and had relied on Property Register Card extracts and a hand sketch map.

The petitioner challenged that order, and the respondents supported the petition.

Under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, where the court is satisfied that a suit has been adjusted by a lawful written compromise signed by the parties, it shall record the compromise and pass a decree in accordance with it; the court must ensure that the compromise is lawful.

Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, provides that entries in the Record of Rights and certified entries in mutation records or a Patta Book are presumed true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted.

In Smt. Jayamma Venkatram v. Smt. Ashraf Jahan Begum, 2020 (3) KCCR 1966, the Court recognised that, in appropriate circumstances, long-standing possession supported by continuous, unchallenged family revenue entries may support possessory title.

The trial court’s concern that the parties had not produced title deeds did not, by itself, establish that their compromise was unlawful or contrary to public policy.

The parties had produced Property Register Card extracts, and the available records indicated that the properties stood in the names of the parties’ parents.

In the absence of a counterclaim, objection, or recorded dispute concerning the revenue entries, the trial court should not have treated the compromise application as an occasion to determine whether the parties had proved ownership by title deeds.

The court therefore found no proper basis for refusing to record the compromise.

It remitted the matter to the trial court to complete the formalities and accept the parties’ compromise.