- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15731 MFA No. 1240 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1240 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. MANGALAMMA W/O M.RAJU AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALAGALU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVASHANKAR, S/O LATE BOLE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O MAREGOWDANA DODDI VILLAGE, ARALAUSANDRA DAKHALE, THUNGANI POST, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159. 2. B.S.GOWDA S/O LATE BOLE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O MAREGOWDANA DODDI VILLAGE ARALAUSANDRA DAKHALE, THUNGANI POST KASABA HOBLI Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15731 MFA No. 1240 of 2025 KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH M H, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. PAVAN.T.G, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO. 777/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA, ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Defendant No.2 has filed the appeal questioning the order passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC in OS.No.777/2022 dated 21.01.2025 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Kanakapura, thereby, the order of temporary injunction is granted restraining defendant No.2 from alienating the suit schedule properties. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession claiming that the suit property is joint - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15731 MFA No. 1240 of 2025 family property. It is the case of the plaintiff that Smt. Jayamma is the mother and she got the property by way of partition through her father and therefore, the suit property basically was sthridaana property of Smt.Jayamma and plaintiff and defendants are the children of Smt.Jayamma. 3. It is the allegation of the plaintiff in the plaint that defendant No.1 cleverly played fraud by making Smt.Jayamma and plaintiff taking them to the office of registrar on the guise that for development of property loan is required from the Bank. Hence, instead of executing mortgage deed, got registered the partition deed in collusion with the bond writer and officers of the registrar. Thus, it is alleged in the pleadings that in this way defendant No.1 had played fraud by getting registration of partition deed. Thus, in this way, defendant No.1 has got entire share of the property without giving share to the plaintiff and Smt.Jayamma. Thus, the plaintiff - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15731 MFA No. 1240 of 2025 filed the suit and application for temporary injunction which was allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff is the consenting witness to the sale deed, of which, defendant No.2 had purchased the property. Therefore, the plaintiff is estopped from contending that fraud is played. 5. Upon considering the pleadings in the plaint particularly paragraph Nos.6 and 7 the plaintiff has pleaded as to under what circumstances the partition deed was registered. There are some pleadings regarding unnatural circumstances when the partition deed got registered in favour of defendant No.1 without giving any share to the plaintiff. This is considered by the trial Court as a prima facie case in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, granted an order of temporary injunction. 6. Upon considering this aspect that whether the plaintiff is successful in making prima facie case. Upon considering the partition deed dated 01.07.2016 all the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15731 MFA No. 1240 of 2025 properties were given to the share of defendant No.1 without giving any share to the plaintiff. Smt.Jayamma being a mother might have sacrificed without getting any property in the said partition deed dated 01.07.2016, but under what circumstances, nothing share is given to the plaintiff is the question to be considered during trial. This Court upon considering the said reasonings does not take any deviative stand. 7. Therefore, the order of temporary injunction restraining defendant No.2 from alienating the suit schedule property is found to be correct upon making out the prima facie case. Therefore, there is no ground available for causing interference with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 8. However, the suit is of the year 2022. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Whatever - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15731 MFA No. 1240 of 2025 observations made above shall not influence the trial Court in disposing of the suit on merits as they are the only observations for considering the present appeal. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38