Case Note & Summary
The dispute centered on a property originally allotted to S. Narayana by the Bengaluru Development Authority in 1973, with a sale deed executed in 1990. Upon his death on July 22, 2013, his wife Smt. Jayarathna succeeded as his sole Class‑I legal heir. She executed a registered Will dated February 1, 2014, bequeathing the property to the appellant, Ramakrishna Math, a religious math established by Swami Vivekananda. Smt. Jayarathna died on October 18, 2014. The Math obtained khatha in its name in July 2015 and was later granted probate of the Will in P & SC No. 269/2016 by the City Civil Court, Bengaluru.
Meanwhile, a partition suit (O.S. No. 23/2014) was filed by one Smt. S.N. Sumithra in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Holenarasipura, claiming the suit property as joint family property. The respondent, S. Yoga, was defendant No. 7 in that suit. He filed a counterclaim asserting ownership based on an alleged adoption by S. Narayana and a Will dated February 25, 2008, executed by S. Narayana in his favor. On July 7, 2015, O.S. No. 23/2014 was referred to Lok Adalat, and a compromise decree was passed, declaring the respondent as the absolute owner of the suit property. The appellant was not a party to that suit.
In response, the appellant filed O.S. No. 10414/2015 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, on July 27, 2016, seeking a declaration that the compromise decree in O.S. No. 23/2014 was not binding on it, alleging fraud, collusion, and that it was a sham transaction. The appellant also sought a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with its possession or creating third‑party rights. The respondent filed a written statement denying the appellant’s claims, asserting that Smt. Jayarathna had no title to execute the Will, that the probate did not confer title, and that the suit was barred by non‑joinder of necessary parties from O.S. No. 23/2014.
The respondent then filed I.A. No. 19 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that the suit was barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC, which prohibits a suit to set aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful. On August 17, 2023, the Trial Court (LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) allowed the application and rejected the plaint. The appellant, Ramakrishna Math, filed RFA No. 1819/2023 under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC, challenging the Trial Court’s order. The High Court heard the appeal and reserved judgment, focusing on whether the suit was correctly rejected as barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC. The judgment was pronounced on March 18, 2025.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint in O.S. No. 10414/2015 was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (03) 4
Regular First Appeal No. 1819 of 2023 (DEC)
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATESANJEEVKUMAR
S.S. Ramdas, Pradeep S. Sawkar, G. Basavaraj, Ajith H.S.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration that a compromise decree is not binding and for permanent injunction, filed by a religious math against an individual claiming ownership through a previous Will and compromise decree.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that the compromise decree dated 07.07.2015 in O.S. No. 23/2014 is not binding on the plaintiff, and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with possession or alienating the suit property.
Filing Reason
The defendant, asserting ownership under a Will dated 25.02.2008 and a compromise decree, was interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the suit property; the plaintiff contended the compromise decree was obtained by fraud and without its participation.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court in O.S. No. 10414/2015 rejected the plaint on I.A. No. 19 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, holding the suit barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC. Earlier, the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Holenarasipura, passed a compromise decree in O.S. No. 23/2014 on 07.07.2015. Probate of Smt. Jayarathna’s Will was granted to the plaintiff in P & SC No. 269/2016 by the City Civil Court, Bengaluru.
Issues
Whether the suit in O.S. No. 10414/2015 is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC?
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff contended that the compromise decree was a product of fraud and collusion, and as a non‑party, it could not be bound; Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC does not bar a suit for a declaration that the decree is not binding on a non‑party.
Defendant argued that the suit is squarely barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC as it seeks to set aside a compromise decree; the plaintiff failed to implead all necessary parties from O.S. No. 23/2014; Smt. Jayarathna had no title to execute the Will in favor of the plaintiff; probate does not conclusively determine title.
The Trial Court held that the plaint was barred by law under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC and rejected it under Order VII Rule 11(d).
Judgment Excerpts
the plaint is rejected as barred by law under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC.
the plaintiff/Ramakrishna Math is not party in the said O.S.No.23/2014.
the compromise decree in O.S.No.23/2014 is a product of sham, fraud, unlawful and collusive and not binding on the plaintiff.
S.Narayana executed the Will dated 22.05.2008, bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant.
the defendant had become the owner of the suit schedule property on both counts by virtue of Will dated 25.02.2008 and also by virtue of compromise decree in O.S.No.23/2014.
Procedural History
The suit property was originally allotted to S. Narayana by BDA in 1973; sale deed executed in 1990. S. Narayana died intestate on 22.07.2013 leaving his wife Smt. Jayarathna as sole legal heir. She executed a registered Will dated 01.02.2014 bequeathing the property to Ramakrishna Math. Smt. Jayarathna died on 18.10.2014. The Math obtained khatha in its name on 06.07.2015. Meanwhile, a partition suit (O.S. No. 23/2014) was filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Holenarasipura, by Smt. S.N. Sumithra; the defendant S. Yoga, claiming adoption and a Will of S. Narayana dated 25.02.2008, was defendant No. 7. On 07.07.2015, a compromise decree was passed giving the property to the defendant. Ramakrishna Math filed O.S. No. 10414/2015 on 27.07.2016 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, seeking a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding and for injunction. Subsequently, the Math obtained probate of Jayarathna’s Will in P & SC No. 269/2016. The defendant filed a written statement and later I.A. No. 19 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. On 17.08.2023, the Trial Court allowed I.A. 19 and rejected the plaint as barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC. The plaintiff filed RFA No. 1819/2023 under Section 96 CPC. The High Court heard the appeal and reserved judgment, pronouncing judgment on 18.03.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1, Order VII Rule 11(d), Order XXIII Rule 3A
- Indian Succession Act, 1925: Section 276
