- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17393 MFA No. 3187 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3187 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SRIDHARA. M S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.602, SANTE THOPU, BUDIGERE VILLAGE, CHANARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHLLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UDAY K.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.602, SANTE THOPU, BUDIGERE VILLAGE, CHANARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHLLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135. 2. SMT.LAKSHMAMA, D/O M.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT. WARD NO.11, DHARAMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, VIJYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562135. Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17393 MFA No. 3187 of 2025 3. SMT. MANJULA, D/O M.MUNIYAPAA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT BYCHAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135. 4. SMT. RAMAKKA, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA.M AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 5. SRI.MUNIRAJU.K S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA.M AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 6. SRI.K.NAGARAJA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA.M AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT NO.582, SANTE THOPU, BUDIGERE VILLAGE, CHANARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHLLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135. 7. SRI. VENKATASWAMAPPA @ VENKATASHAMAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 8. SRI. VENKATESHA.V, S/O SRI. VENKATASWAMAPPA @ VENKATASHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 9. SRI.MUNIKRISHNA. V, S/O SRI. VENKATASWAMAPPA @ VENKATASHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17393 MFA No. 3187 of 2025 RESPONDENT NO.7 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT NO.602, SANTE THOPU, BUDIGERE VILLAGE, CHANARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHLLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135. 10. SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 11. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O SRI.MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 12. SRI.MURALI.M S/O SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 13. SRI. MUNINARAYANA.M S/O SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 14. SRI.SUBRAMANI.M S/O SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 15. SRI. VENKATESH, M S/O SRI.MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESPONDENT NO. 10 TO 15 ARE RESIDING AT NO.101, SANTE THOPU, BUDIGERE VILLAGE, CHANARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHLLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135. 16. SRI. SATHISH.K S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17393 MFA No. 3187 of 2025 R/AT GOPALPURA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560 064. 17. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA. G, W/O LATE M.LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.335, SHETHA NILAYA, NARAYANAPPA ROAD, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, HENNUR CROSS, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH.S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5; SRI. V.RAVI PRASKAH, ADVOCATE FOR CR16 AND R17) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(d) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO. I AND III TO V IN OS.NO.1107/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO. 1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.III TO V FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 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 The appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order dated 14.03.2025 passed insofar as against I.A.Nos.3 to 5 in not granting an order of temporary injunction in respect of suit item Nos.7 and 8 properties as well as allowing I.A.No.1 in part - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17393 MFA No. 3187 of 2025 passed by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition by contending that the suit item Nos.1 to 8 are ancestral and joint family properties. The trial Court upon considering I.A.Nos.3 to 5 restrained defendant Nos.1 to 3, their agents or anybody claiming through them from alienating the suit item Nos.1 to 6 properties in favour of third party till disposal of suit. The ex- parte order of permanent injunction granted against defendants in respect of the suit item Nos.7 and 8 properties was vacated. Being aggrieved for not granting an order of injunction in respect of suit item Nos.7 and 8 the present appeal is filed. 3. Akkachamma who is grand mother of the plaintiff and mother of defendant Nos.1, 4, 7 and 10 had partition of property item No.7 and 8, through additional sale deed dated 28.9.1998. It is the case of the plaintiff that Akkachamma had purchased item Nos.7 and 8 properties out of joint family properties of item Nos.1 to 6, therefore item Nos.7 and 8 were also joint family property. Whether Akkachamma had pledged the sources derived from item Nos.1 to 6 properties to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17393 MFA No. 3187 of 2025 purchase properties of item Nos.7 and 8 are not? is a question to be tried in full fledged trial in the suit. But prima facie soon after acquisition of property by Akkachamma through recent sale deed attracts Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 4. Thereafter, Akkachamma had registered 'Will' dated 12.10.2012 in favour of her children the defendant Nos.1,4, 7 and 10. The plaintiff is son of defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiff's father defendant No.1 is also beneficiary under said 'Will' in respect of suit item Nos.7 and 8 properties. Even after demise of Akkachamma, her children defendant Nos.1, 4, 7 and 10 inherited the property item Nos.7 and 8, but not to the plaintiff. Therefore, even through 'Will' also the children of Akkachamma have equally got share through the 'Will' dated 12.10.2012. There were partition on 18.3.2024 and it is not disputed by the plaintiff. It is only grievance of the plaintiff that the suit item Nos.7 and 8 were not included in the said partition, but in response to the suit, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 adopted the objection filed by the defendant Nos.4 to 6 and 10 to 15. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17393 MFA No. 3187 of 2025 5. Furthermore, the defendant No.1 is signatory to the agreement of sale executed in favour of defendant Nos.16 and 17. When this being the fact, the Trial Court is correct in refusing an order of permanent injunction in respect of suit item Nos.7 and 8 properties. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB/AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47