- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10922 MFA No. 905 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.905 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: VANITHA W/O RAMU, D/O D. PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RA/T NO.355,3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI NAGAR, MARIYAPPA LAYOUT SANJAY NAGAR POST, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 094. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. D. PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY S/O LATE J. DORAISWAMY REDDY AGE 71 YEARS RA/T NO.19, 6TH CROSS, A.E.C.S. LAYOUT, ACHALA SAVA ASHRAM ROAD SANJAY NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 094. 2. P. YAGENDRA REDDY S/O D. PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY, AGE 44 YEARS, RA/T NO.536, GURUKRUPA RESIDENCE, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, R M V 2ND STAGE, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10922 MFA No. 905 of 2025 BENGALURU - 560 094. 3. P. BHAGYALAKSHMI REDDY W/O SUDHAKAR, D/O D. PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RA/T NO. 16, 1ST CROSS, OVINDAPPA LAYOUT NAGASHETTIHALLI BENGALURU - 560 094. 4. SUNITHA W/O NAVEEN D/O D PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RA/T NO. 334, KLSR LUKE VILAS 1ST FLOOR, 13TH MAIN ROAD, BEHIND GREEN VILAS MEDICAL CENTRE, BANGALORE - 560 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT VAJARAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR CR/1) THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2025 PASSED IN OS.NO.1256/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH-65, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.IX FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 34 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10922 MFA No. 905 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Plaintiff No.2 in O.S.No.1256/2018 has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2025 passed on I.A.No.IX in O.S.No.1256/2018 on the file of LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge CCH-65, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short), filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction is dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs have filed suit for partition and separate possession by contending that the suit schedule item Nos.1 to 5 properties are ancestral and joint family - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10922 MFA No. 905 of 2025 properties. Plaintiff No.2 has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules and 1 and 2 of CPC, not to alienate the suit schedule item Nos.1 to 5 properties. 5. Subsequent to the plaint got amended by asserting the suit schedule item Nos.6 to 12 properties, plaintiff No.2 has filed an application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule item Nos.6 to 12 properties, but the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. 6. Now during the course of argument in the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff No.2 has confined his argument only in respect of suit schedule item Nos.7 and 12 properties. 7. So far as the suit schedule item No.12 property is concerned, the counsel for respondents/defendants submitted that the plaintiffs have executed a registered relinquishment deed and produced copy of registered relinquishment deed, in which the stipulation goes to show - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10922 MFA No. 905 of 2025 that defendant No.2 had executed a relinquishment deed so far as the property measuring 33 guntas of land during pendency of the suit in O.S.No.1256/2018. The plaintiffs have relinquished remaining 01 acre 07 guntas of land. The recital in the relinquishment deed goes to show that 33 guntas of land out of 02 acres were sold by defendant No.2/P. Yogender Reddy in the interest of the family by retaining the schedule property. The schedule property as per this relinquishment deed is 01 acre 07 gunats. Therefore, the entire status of land was sold out. 8. Further, it is the contention of defendant No.1 is that the suit schedule item No.12 is self acquired property of defendant No.1. Therefore, the Trial Court is of the opinion that whether suit schedule item No.12 is self acquired property or joint family property is to be decided during the full-fledged trial. For these reasons, the application filed by plaintiff No.2 was dismissed. 9. Plaintiff No.2 was having awareness regarding the sale of 33 guntas of land out of 02 acres in Sy.No.206 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10922 MFA No. 905 of 2025 and further for remaining 01 acre 07 guntas of land, she has relinquished her right by virtue of relinquishment deed; therefore, the Trial Court is correct in rejecting the application. Further, when defendant No.1 contended that the suit schedule item No.12 property is self acquired property of defendant No.1, this is trial issue before the Trial Court, whether the property is self acquired property of defendant No.1 or joint acquired property. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in rejecting the application filed by plaintiff No.2. Hence, there is no need to make interference in the order passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 11. It is submitted that defendant No.1 is senior citizen aged of 72 years old therefore, it is directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible within a period of one year from the stage fixed for plaintiffs’ evidence. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10922 MFA No. 905 of 2025 12. Both the parties shall cooperate with the Trial Court for early disposal. If the plaintiffs and defendants seek unnecessary adjournments without reasons, then the Trial Court is at liberty to impose cost upon the plaintiffs and defendants. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26