The Karnataka High Court has held that Trial Courts dealing with hurried compromises must verify the parties’ identities, read and explain the terms in a language known to them and expressly note that the parties understood the settlement.

It further stated that obtaining their signatures on every page would prevent subsequent allegations of manipulation or foul play.

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging a Lok Adalat compromise decree in a partition suit, under which the petitioner and certain other defendants purportedly relinquished their entire interests in the suit properties.

A Bench of Justice M.G.S. Kamal observed: “Another trend being noticed is that matters are being compromised/settled before Lok-Adalat within weeks or months of filing of the suit. In some cases even before normal service of notices/summons, matters are advanced, vakalaths are filed on behalf of the defendants and compromise are arrived at in a hurried manner through agents/power of attorney holder. In the case of minor person claiming through guardian without proper opportunity as required under Order XXXII of CPC. It is these class of cases which are more prone to challenges as the one at hand. It is therefore necessary that the Trial Courts accepting the compromise in the cases of these nature shall ensure proper identification of the parties and they having been read over and understood the terms of the compromise in the language know to them and a specific noting in this regard be made in the order.”

The Court added: “It would therefore be appropriate that signatures of the parties be obtained in all the pages of the compromise petition, to obliterate any allegation of foul play.”

Advocate Basavaraj Mathapati appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Aniket R. Desai appeared for the respondents.

Background

A partition suit concerning six immovable properties was filed on June 29, 2026. Although it was initially posted to August 27 for issuance of summons, it was advanced to July 2, when an advocate filed a vakalatnama for all the defendants and a compromise petition was presented.

The Trial Court stated that it had read the terms to the parties, found that the compromise was voluntary and accepted it. It then referred the case to the Lok Adalat for acceptance on July 11, 2026, where an award was passed in terms of the compromise.

The petitioner alleged that she was unaware of the settlement’s contents. She submitted that the first five pages of the six-page compromise petition did not contain the parties’ signatures and that the only signed page contained none of the substantive terms. One clause purportedly recorded her complete relinquishment of her interest in the properties.

The respondents maintained that the petitioner had signed the compromise with full knowledge and had expressed satisfaction with its terms before the Trial Court and Lok Adalat.

Court’s Observations

Trial Court Confused Two Distinct Compromise Procedures

The Court distinguished a reference to alternative dispute resolution under Section 89 CPC from the recording of a concluded compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

Referring to Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Ltd. (2010), the Court observed that the Section 89 process ordinarily begins after completion of pleadings and before issues are framed. The court must examine whether the case is suitable for alternative dispute resolution and explain the available processes to the parties.

The Court held: “The Trial Court seems to have lost sight of this cardinal difference in the provisions of law, namely Section 89 and Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. Before referring the matter for Lok-Adalat, the Trial Court should have ensured that exercise of power under Section 89 of CPC would arise only after completion of the pleadings, before framing of issues, and when the matter is set down for preliminary hearing for appearance of the parties. None of these processes seem to have been followed by the Trial Court.”

The Court observed that the parties had not sought a reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. Instead, the Trial Court had already enquired into and accepted the compromise before sending it to the Lok Adalat merely for formal acceptance, which was contrary to the statutory scheme.

Lok Adalat Procedure Was Not Followed

Relying on K.G. Subbaiah v. Shardamma (2026), the Court observed that Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 prescribe the procedure for referring pending disputes to Lok Adalats.

The Court also referred to Smt. Akkubai v. Shri Venkatrao (2014) and Smt. Renuka v. Ramanand (2022) while emphasising the need to maintain a separate Lok Adalat order sheet.

The Court noted that the Advocate Conciliator had not signed the award. It observed that Regulation 17 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009 requires the parties to sign or affix their thumb impressions and the Lok Adalat members to countersign the settlement before it becomes an award.

The Court stated: “In terms of Section 21 of the Act 1987 every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of Civil Court. A decree without signature does not carry its legality and enforceability. Further, as per Regulation No.17 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok-Adalats) Regulation, 2009 when both the parties sign or affix their thumb impression and the members of the Lok-Adalat counter sign it, only then it becomes award. Even this requirement has not been complied with.”

The Court consequently found substantive legal and procedural irregularities warranting the compromise decree’s annulment.

Court Cannot Merely Endorse A Compromise

Referring to Krishna Kumar Ojha v. Jitendra Chaudhary (2026), the Court observed that a compromise must be in writing, signed and voluntarily accepted. It further stated that the court’s role could not be reduced to merely endorsing the parties’ document.

The Court held: “It is required to apply its judicial mind to the terms and ensure that they are lawful which also warrants the terms of the contract be read over to the parties in the language known to them and to ensure they having understood what they would be receiving and what they would be giving up in terms of the compromise.”

The Court noted that nothing had been allotted to the petitioner under the settlement. Since the unsigned substantive clause purportedly extinguished her entire interest without any specific judicial notation that it had been explained to her, the Court held that her allegation of ignorance could not be brushed aside.

Signatures On Every Page Would Prevent Disputes

The Court clarified that no statutory provision specifically requires parties to sign every page of a compromise petition and that, in ordinary circumstances, signatures on the final page may be sufficient.

It nevertheless observed that compromises operate as agreements recording the parties’ bargains and bind them to their terms. The Court stated: “Compromise petition in its true sense is an agreement, a contract and an instrument containing terms of bargain between the parties. It evidences and records agreement of offer and acceptance between the parties. It binds the party to such contract. Such contract shall be lawful and shall not be opposed to any law or public policy. It shall be in writing and signed by the parties.”

The Court added that obtaining signatures or initials on every page was an accepted practice intended to prevent ambiguity and allegations of alteration or manipulation.

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition and quashed the July 11, 2026 compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat Bench of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot.

The Court remitted the partition suit to the Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law while leaving the parties free to arrive at a fresh settlement. It directed the Registry to circulate the order to the Karnataka Judicial Academy and all Taluk and District Legal Services Authorities in the State.

Cause Title: Gangavva v. Vishwanath and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:15357)

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: