Karnataka HC BENGALURU: Karnataka HC has held that even a third party can, depending on the facts of the case, challenge a lok adalat award through a writ petition if the award is alleged to have been secured fraudulently by excluding a proper and necessary party. The observation was made by Justice M Nagaprasanna while quashing a decree passed by a civil court in Hosapete, Vijayanagara district, arising from a compromise recorded before a lok adalat. The case is related to a land partition dispute in Kamalapur village. A compromise petition had been entered into before the lok adalat between Nagamma Nagalapura and the children of Karadantappa, both belonging to different branches of the family of Khemmani Hanumanthappa, the original owner of the properties. Guramma and her children, who also claimed to be part of the same family, were not arrayed as parties to the suit. Challenging the decree dated July 8, 2023, Guramma and her children contended that they were necessary parties and the compromise was entered into in collusion, with the intent of denying them their legitimate share in property. They had initially filed an appeal but withdrew it after being advised that an appeal was not maintainable against a decree drawn from a lok adalat compromise. They subsequently approached HC. Opposing the plea, the respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as Guramma and her children were not parties to the original partition suit. After examining the records, provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and earlier judgments, Justice Nagaprasanna held that in certain circumstances, a third party is entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge a lok adalat award if fraud is alleged on the grounds that the party was deliberately not impleaded despite being necessary to the proceedings. Allowing the petition, the court ordered restoration of the civil suit before Hosapete court. It also directed that any financial transactions carried out pursuant to the compromise should be deposited before the trial court, remaining subject to the final outcome of partition proceedings.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosShankh Air Founder Speaks Out As Airline Eyes March Launch, Targets Intl Flights By 2029’Their Islamist Ideas…’: Ex-Bangladesh Minister Hits Out Over Attacks on Hindus And Christians’Very Petty & Shameful’: Shashi Tharoor On Row Over KKR Selecting Bangladeshi Player In IPLINLD President Calls For Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal Type Uprising In India Politics, Triggers RowBJP Claims Rahul Gandhi Ties To ‘Anti-India’ Panel Over US Lawmakers’ Umar Khalid LetterNot All Are Illiterate: Rajnath Singh Cites Red Fort Blast, Flags Educated, White Collar Terrorists’Arunachal Pradesh Is And Will Always Be…’ Jaishankar Warns China, Blasts Harassment Of IndiansBullet Train Gets August 15, 2027 India Launch Date, Minister Shares Details On Tunnel BreakthroughCleanest City Hit By Water Contamination As Lab Links Indore Diarrhoea Outbreak To Pipeline LeakUS Lawmaker Raja Krishnamoorthi Condemns Violence Against Hindus In Bangladesh Urges Global Action Up123PhotostoriesWhy your fish keeps dying: 5 mistakes most aquarium owners make without realising7 foods to combine with sweet potato for a wholesome breakfastOlder people who live happily, do these 10 things in their 30 and 40s8 winter pickles to add warmth and taste to your mealsLessons from centenarians: What the world’s longest-living people eat‘Shark Tank India Season 5’: FULL LIST of judges, their net worth, and the brands they ownKylie Jenner-Timothée Chalamet to complete 3 years of dating in 2026: 3 relationship lessons to learn from themHow to make Dhaba-style Dal Makhani at homeAttract True Love During the January 2026 Full Moon; According To Birth Number10 oldest trees in the world that are still living and where can they be found123Hot PicksPremarital Test OmanVande Bharat Sleeper TrainJanuary Bank holidayGold rate todayIncome Tax RefundBahrain Golden Visa 2025Bank Holidays DecemberTop TrendingSan Francisco 49ersBrittany MahomesNoah Lyles and Junelle Bromfield Net WorthWayne Gretzky Daughter Net WorthSidney Crosby LifestyleLeBron James vs Stephen Curry Net WorthTom BradyLeBron James WifeCam ThomasCharlie Kirk
BENGALURU: Karnataka HC has held that even a third party can, depending on the facts of the case, challenge a lok adalat award through a writ petition if the award is alleged to have been secured fraudulently by excluding a proper and necessary party. The observation was made by Justice M Nagaprasanna while quashing a decree passed by a civil court in Hosapete, Vijayanagara district, arising from a compromise recorded before a lok adalat. The case is related to a land partition dispute in Kamalapur village. A compromise petition had been entered into before the lok adalat between Nagamma Nagalapura and the children of Karadantappa, both belonging to different branches of the family of Khemmani Hanumanthappa, the original owner of the properties. Guramma and her children, who also claimed to be part of the same family, were not arrayed as parties to the suit. Challenging the decree dated July 8, 2023, Guramma and her children contended that they were necessary parties and the compromise was entered into in collusion, with the intent of denying them their legitimate share in property. They had initially filed an appeal but withdrew it after being advised that an appeal was not maintainable against a decree drawn from a lok adalat compromise. They subsequently approached HC. Opposing the plea, the respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as Guramma and her children were not parties to the original partition suit. After examining the records, provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and earlier judgments, Justice Nagaprasanna held that in certain circumstances, a third party is entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge a lok adalat award if fraud is alleged on the grounds that the party was deliberately not impleaded despite being necessary to the proceedings. Allowing the petition, the court ordered restoration of the civil suit before Hosapete court. It also directed that any financial transactions carried out pursuant to the compromise should be deposited before the trial court, remaining subject to the final outcome of partition proceedings.
