- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12017 WP No. 43830 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 43830 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI NARAYANAGOWDA S/O H. BETEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A NO. SOREKAIPURA VILLAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SARAVANA S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT PUTTALAKSHMI W/O LATE BETEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A SOREKAIPURA VILLAGE, HIRISAVE HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPANTNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT -573 116. 2. SRI. NARASIMHEGOWDA S/O H. BETEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A SOREKAIPURA VILLAGE, HIRISAVE HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPANTNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVIKUMARA B R.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12017 WP No. 43830 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN M.A.9 OF 2018, DATED 29.07.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA, VIDE ANNX-F, CONSEQUENTLY UPHOLD THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2018 VIDE ANNX-D, PASSED BY 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHENARAYAPATNA IN OS NO.410 OF 2017 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2019 passed in miscellaneous appeal in M.A.No.9/2018 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna (hereinafter referred to as First Appellate Court), by which the First Appellate Court while allowing the said appeal set aside the interim order dated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12017 WP No. 43830 of 2019 09.10.2018 passed in O.S.No.410/2017 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) and rejected the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff. 2. The above suit in O.S.No.410/2017 is filed by the plaintiff herein against the respondents for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.32/P13, measuring 2 acres 12 guntas situated at Kasaranahalli village, Hirisave Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk Hassan District described in the schedule to the plaint. The said relief is sought on the premise that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner in possession of the suit land by virtue of a grant made in his favour by the revenue authorities on 12.01.1995. That the respondents/defendants who are brothers had created false documents based on which were making claims adverse to the interest of the plaintiff/petitioner. Hence the suit. 3. Written statement is filed by the defendants denying the plaint averments. At para 5 it is specifically contented by the defendants that about 6 years prior to filing of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12017 WP No. 43830 of 2019 the suit there was a family partition in terms of which an extent of 1 acre 35 guntas of land out of the suit property was allotted to the share of the husband of the first defendant and an extent of 17 guntas of land was allotted in favour of second defendant. Thus, it is contended based on the said partition, the parties have severed the joint family status and they are in possession of their respective shares allotted thereunder. 4. The Trial Court on consideration of the material document furnished, came to the prima facie conclusion that since admittedly the land was granted in the name of the plaintiff in terms of the grant, he had prima facie established his right, title and possession over the said property which was the only consideration for the purpose of granting the interim order and accordingly allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by its order dated 09.10.2018. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 has approached the First Appellate Court by filing aforesaid miscellaneous appeal in M.A.No.9/2018. The First Appellate Court applying the principles that a grant made in favour of a member of the family would enure to the benefits of all the members of the family, and that the claim for exclusivity - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12017 WP No. 43830 of 2019 on the property is required to be tested during the trial, allowed the miscellaneous appeal in M.A.No.9/2018 and rejected the appeal and it is this decision which is put into consideration. 5. Counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the records submits that the Trial Court had rightly appreciated the case of the petitioner of the suit property having been granted in his name, which fact is not disputed even by the defendants. He submits specific case of the respondents being severance of the joint family status in terms of the alleged partition, in which the suit property had been allotted to the share of husband of the defendant No.1, the First Appellate Court could not have come to the conclusion that the property remained a joint family property causing impediment in granting the interim order. He submits this is an error of law on the face of it. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the defendants have contended that there was a partition of the suit property, the same cannot be construed that the joint family status has been severed. He insists since the joint family continues to exist an interim order - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12017 WP No. 43830 of 2019 restraining the other member of the family cannot be granted. He relies upon the order passed by this Court in WP No.1271/2021 dated 07.11.2023 on this proposition. Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition. 7. Heard and perused records. 8. As already noted above the claim of the petitioner is that he got the suit property in terms of a grant made in his favour on 12.01.1995 and that the revenue records were standing in his name all through till filing of the suit and thereafter. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that there was a family partition about 6 years prior to the filing of the suit, in which an extent of 1 acre 35 guntas was allotted to the share of husband of the defendant No.1 and an extent of 17 guntas allotted to the share of defendant No.2 which property is being claimed by the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner if case of the respondents is that there was a partition, it cannot be construed that the joint family is still subsisting, as sought to be contended by learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the principles of law sought to be canvassed that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12017 WP No. 43830 of 2019 there cannot be interim order in respect joint family property cannot be countenanced. 9. As regards the exclusive right being claimed by the petitioner, which is based on the grant made on 12.01.1995 though it is urged that the said grant was for the benefit of the family, in the light of specific defence raised by the defendants regarding severance of the Joint family status in terms of the partition alleged to have taken place, this Court in the fitness of things deems it appropriate that party shall be directed to maintain status quo with regard to nature and title of the property till disposal of the suit. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents at this juncture submitted that if status quo order is granted same may cause prejudice and hardship to the parties. As regard to hardship is concerned it is to be noted this Court by order dated 25.10.2019 had granted interim order as sought for. Till date there has been no effort made seeking vacating of the order on the ground of hardship. Therefore, the respondent now at this belated length of time cannot contended that if the status quo order is granted, it would cause hardship to them. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12017 WP No. 43830 of 2019 11. In that view of the matter, petition is disposed of directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to nature and title of the property till disposal of the suit in O.S.No.410/2017 pending consideration on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14