BYLAMMA Vs. KARIBYRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners being the plaintiffs in a suit for partition in O.S.No.374/2008 are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for invalidation of the judgment and decree passed by the Court below in terms of settlement arrived in conciliation, alleging fraud, undue influence and coercion. The respondents having entered appearance through their counsel resist the Writ Petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs finds fault with the impugned order made on the ground that before disposing the suit in terms of the settlement, the Court below had not heard them, the contesting respondent had assured of paying a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) to the petitioners after the settlement and this amount having not been paid, the settlement stands vitiated by fraud and coercion; these aspects having not been duly adverted to by the Court below, the counsel argues, the impugned order is liable to be invalidated.

(3.) Learned counsel for contesting respondents, per contra, contends that the settlement in question is not in dispute; it is signed by all parties; the said settlement was the result of a long drawn conciliation proceedings in which the parties participated a dozen times; the ground urged for invalidation of the order disposing of the suit in terms of the settlement does not constitute fraud or coercion at all; petition lacks in material particulars which are required to be pleaded under Order VI Rule 4 of CPC, which is applicable to the applications filed under Order XXIII Rule 3A r/w Section 151 of CPC for setting aside a compromise decree on the grounds that avail for avoiding the contract. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.