PARAPPA AND ORS. Vs. PARAWA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who are defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in the trial court, challenging the order dated 16.07.2014 passed in O.S. No. 179/2012, rejecting I.A. No. 8, filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to amend the written statement.

(2.) THE respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who are the plaintiffs in the trial court, filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of R.S. No. 618/7 measuring 0.31 guntas and R.S. No. 619/7 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas 8 annas, situated at Mugalkhod village, Raibag Taluk and the compromise decree is not binding on them, and also for restraining the defendants from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of the suit lands pending in the suit, contending that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties and they are growing sugar -cane crops. The plaintiffs also contended that, on giving a varadi by defendants, the defendants have not asked the plaintiffs to give possession of the suit lands. The possession of the suit lands are with the plaintiffs. Believing them, plaintiffs have joined their hands with defendant No. 1 and jointly cultivated the lands. The plaintiffs and defendants cultivated the suit lands jointly till the death of Mallappa. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit lands, etc.

(3.) THE matter was posted for plaintiffs' evidence. At that stage, defendant Nos. 1 to 5 filed the application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of written statement to the effect that earlier the suit O.S. No. 651/2011 filed for declaration and injunction was dismissed as withdrawn. The plaintiffs did not seek liberty to withdraw or abandon the claim to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The present suit is hit by Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of Code of Civil Procedure and also contended that defendant No. 3 has filed O.S. No. 384/2011 against defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties and during the pendency of the said suit, the matter came to be settled by way of compromise petition and the same was referred to Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat recorded compromise decree dated 08.08.2011. The parties to the suit have not challenged the decree/award. The said decree passed by Lok Adalat has become final. Therefore, the relief of declaration regarding compromise decree is not maintainable.