Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash a compromise decree in OS No. 123/2025, alleging it was fraudulent as they were not made parties despite being coparceners in ancestral joint family property. The High Court, referencing CPC provisions and Supreme Court judgments, held that the Trial Court must reconsider the compromise decree upon petitioners filing an application, as direct quashing was improper. The Court disposed of the petition without issuing notice to respondents, directing the Trial Court to hear the petitioners' contentions afresh.
Headnote
The High Court of Karnataka, Writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India seeking to quash a compromise decree in OS No. 123/2025 dated 07-03-2025 -- The petitioners, coparceners in ancestral joint family property, contended that the compromise decree was illegal, arbitrary, and fraudulent as they were not made parties to the suit -- The Court referred to Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and the judgment in Navratan Lal Sharma v. Radha Mohan Sharma and Others [2024 INSC 970], which cited Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi [(1993)1 SCC 581] and Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh [(2006)5 SCC 566] -- It held that under Order 23, Rule 3 CPC, the Court must apply judicial mind to ensure the compromise is lawful, and void or voidable agreements under Indian Contract Act, 1872 are not lawful -- The Court noted that Section 96(3) CPC bars appeal against consent decree, and deletion of Order 43, Rule 1(m) CPC prohibits appeal against order recording compromise, with Order 23 Rule 3A CPC preventing fresh suit -- The only remedy is to approach the court that recorded the compromise under proviso to Order 23, Rule 3 CPC -- The High Court declined to quash the decree directly but directed the Trial Court to reconsider the matter upon petitioners filing an application in OS No. 123/2025, citing similar disposal in WP No. 204220/2025 dated 07-01-2026
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of whether a compromise decree obtained fraudulently without making necessary parties can be challenged under Article 227 of Constitution of India
Final Decision
The High Court disposed of the writ petition without issuing notice to respondents, directing the Trial Court to reconsider the compromise decree upon petitioners filing an application or petition in OS No. 123/2025, citing similar disposal in WP No. 204220/2025 and Supreme Court judgments
Law Points
- Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 (CPC) requires judicial satisfaction on lawfulness of compromise
- Section 96(3) CPC bars appeal against consent decree
- Order 43 Rule 1(m) CPC deletion prohibits appeal against order recording compromise
- Order 23 Rule 3A CPC prevents fresh suit for setting aside decree
- Indian Contract Act
- 1872 governs void and voidable agreements
- Article 227 of Constitution of India empowers High Court supervisory jurisdiction
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (01) 47
WRIT PETITION No.202339 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-K:253
Venkatesh Bandenavar, Vikas Bandenavar, Shaila W/o Basavaraj Bandenavr, Rajshekhar Bandenavr, Basamma W/o Mohan Bandenavar, Sudharani W/o Shrinivas Masarakal, Priyanka Bandenavar W/o Raghavendra, Shridevi W/o Vithal Masarkal, Shivaputra Bandenavar
Laxmibai W/o Mansingh @ Mahalingappa, Bandenavar @ Uppar, Sudhir S/o Sambhaji Pol
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging a compromise decree in a civil suit
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the compromise decree dated 07-03-2025 in OS No. 123/2025
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged the compromise decree was illegal, arbitrary, and fraudulent as they were not made parties to the suit despite being coparceners in ancestral joint family property
Previous Decisions
Compromise decree passed by Principal Civil Judge, Vijayapura on 07-03-2025 in OS No. 123/2025 based on a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC
Issues
Whether the compromise decree obtained without making necessary parties can be challenged under Article 227 of Constitution of India
Whether the Trial Court should reconsider the compromise decree upon petitioners filing an application
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued the compromise decree was fraudulent and illegal as they were not parties to the suit
Petitioners contended the property was ancestral joint family property and mutation entry included their names
Respondents allegedly colluded to enter into a sale agreement and obtain the decree behind petitioners' back
Ratio Decidendi
Under Order 23, Rule 3 CPC, the Court must apply judicial mind to ensure compromise is lawful; void or voidable agreements under Indian Contract Act, 1872 are not lawful; Section 96(3) CPC bars appeal against consent decree; deletion of Order 43, Rule 1(m) CPC prohibits appeal against order recording compromise; Order 23 Rule 3A CPC prevents fresh suit; the only remedy is to approach the court that recorded the compromise under proviso to Order 23, Rule 3 CPC
Judgment Excerpts
"This Court in Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi [(1993)1 SCC 581] has laid down the law on the disposal of a proceeding in accordance with a compromise between the parties and on recall of a compromise decree"
"The law on the issue is summarised in Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh [(2006)5 SCC 566]"
"The only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to approach the court that recorded the compromise under the proviso to Order 23, Rule 3"
Procedural History
Suit OS No. 123/2025 filed on 27-01-2025 for specific performance of contract; compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC on 06-03-2025; compromise decree passed on 07-03-2025; writ petition WP No. 202339 of 2025 filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India on 14-01-2026; High Court disposed of petition directing Trial Court reconsideration
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXIII Rule 3, Section 96(3), Order 43 Rule 1(m), Order 23 Rule 3A
- Indian Contract Act, 1872: Provisions on void and voidable agreements
