VEERAGOUDA Vs. KAMAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the impugned order dtd. 4/8/2001 passed in O.S.No.457/2000 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Athani, whereby the compromise said to have been entered between the respondents herein was accepted by the Trial Court.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 4 to 6. Perused the material on record.

(3.) In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners invites my attention to the compromise decree in order to point out that petitioners' father was originally arrayed as plaintiff No.1, while plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the original defendants, who are arrayed as respondents to the present petition. It is submitted that through the1st plaintiff had not given any instructions or authorization to the 2nd plaintiff/Paragouda Lagamagouda Patil, hefiled an application before the Trial Court seeking deletion of the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 on 4/8/2001, pursuant to which petitioner/plaintiff No.1 was deleted. Subsequent thereto, plaintiffs No.2 to 4 and defendants i.e., respondents herein entered into a settlement and purported to compromise the matter. After coming know about the compromise in the absence of petitioner/plaintiff No.1, who had not given his consent to be deleted from the array of party, petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.6/2002 challenging the compromise decree. So also, the 3rd respondent herein also filed one more suit in O.S.No.372/2002 for declaration that he was the owner of the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. Both the suits having been clubbed together, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the common Judgment and Decree dtd. 30/11/2016, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that a separate suit was not maintainable and only the remedy available to the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.