- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24379 MFA No. 3529 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3529 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O.LATE. H.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.136, 1 MAIN, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL TALUK. …APPELLANT (BY SRI G.PURUSHOTHAM, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O. LATE H.NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT 126, 1ST MAIN ROAD BABASABARAPALYA, KENGERI UPANAGARA BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. 2. SRI. K. BANADHA RANGAIAH S/O. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS. 3. SMT. T.D. JAYAMMA W/O. BANADHA RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.666, 4TH CROSS ROAD MAHALAKSHMI BADAVANE BENGALURU-560 080. 4. SRI. KHALLIKKUNISSA S/O. MOHAMMAD BAKSHI Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24379 MFA No. 3529 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1ST MAIN ROAD GANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 009. 5. SRI. MOHSINIYAZ S/O. ABDUL KAREEM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT C/O. ZAKIR ALIKHAN NO.31, K.B. COLONY, JAIPURA ROAD TUMAKUR. 6. SMT. H.NIRAMALAKUMARI W/O. K.M.PARTHASARATHI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 1ST D MAIN ROAD KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN BENGALURU-560 060. 7. SRI. BOJARAJA ARUS S/O. DARSHARATHA RAJA ARUS AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6, SIDDARATHA BLOCK MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. …RESPONDENTS * * * THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 5-4-2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2037 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-5), DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24379 MFA No. 3529 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 05.04.2025 on I.A. filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of IPC, in OS.No.2037/2021 passed by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-5), rejecting the plaintiff's application. 2. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff before the trial Court, that he is the son of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 is the wife of deceased H.Narasimaiah @ Rajanna. According to plaintiff, his father inherited some properties from his father Hanumanthappa. He further stated that out of the ancestral properties his father purchased a suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.20/1 measuring 31 guntas situated at Kengeri Village and Hobli Bengaluru South Taluk in the year 1973-74, out of the joint family funds. He alleges that his father was addicted to bad vices and he has created unregistered documents such as sale agreements and General Power of Attorney. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24379 MFA No. 3529 of 2025 There are three sale deeds challenged in this appeal in the said suit, which are of the year 2004, 2008 and 2009 respectively. 3. The plaintiff has described the schedule property as Sy.No.20/1 measuring 31 guntas with the boundaries mentioned. He alleges that, there are alienations of the properties on 25.11.2004, 26.08.2008, 09.03.2009. In OS No.2037/2021, plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to grant temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.2 to 7 from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property. 4. The learned trial Court on considering the pleadings and documents produced by both the parties rejected the said application, holding that the plaintiff has not at all made out any prima facie case, the balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff and ultimately no hardship is caused to the plaintiff if no injunction is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24379 MFA No. 3529 of 2025 granted. By holding so, there is rejection of the interim application. Now, the plaintiff is before this Court challenging the said order. 5. On perusal of the plaint so produced along with the appeal memo at page No.23, it shows that, the plaintiff has specifically stated that, the suit schedule property is a joint family property as his father acquired out of the joint family funds. He has described the entire suit property of 31 guntas in Sy.No.20/1 situated at Kengeri Village. Even states that, there are alienations of the portion of the schedule property on 25.11.2004, executed by defendant No.6 in favour of defendant No.5, a sale deed dated 26.08.2008 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 and a sale deed dated 09.03.2009 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of the portion of the schedule property. After sale of the said properties he states that the property so remaining in his name as mentioned in the plaint. Entire 31 guntas has been shown as the schedule - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24379 MFA No. 3529 of 2025 property in the plaint. There is no pleading with regard to the remaining property now held by the family of plaintiff and defendants. Even the trial Court while considering the interim application, has come to the conclusion that, plaintiff has not made out any grounds to grant any temporary injunction. 6. It is observed that, the plaintiff is claiming his right in the entire 31 guntas. But property is Site No.201/1/H4 and it is 60x40 square feet, purchased in the year 2004 and from that date onwards one of the defendant is in possession of the property. Likewise, the trial Court has observed with regard to the pleadings of the defendants so pleaded in their pleadings. No documents are produced by the plaintiff to show his possession and enjoyment of the property, nor he has produced any other document to show that, still he is the owner and is in possession of the property. By observing so, the application came to be rejected. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24379 MFA No. 3529 of 2025 7. When an application is filed seeking temporary injunction, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove the ingredients of the said Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship. 8. In this case, the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case. He has filed a suit for partition. By filing the suit in the styled as partition suit, has challenged three sale deeds. He is not in possession of property and no document is produced to prove the said fact. Thus, there is no prima facie case made by the plaintiff as rightly observed by the trial Court. So also when plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his possession of property along with the defendants, then the balance of convenience also does not tilt in favour of the plaintiff. As some of the defendants have purchased properties/sites as per the sale deeds stated supra and according to them, from the date of purchase they are in possession of the property. If now any injunction is granted as rightly observed by the trial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24379 MFA No. 3529 of 2025 Court, it is the defendant's would be put to hardship and loss. 9. Therefore, I do not find any factual or legal error committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned order. Even the pleadings are not properly pleaded by the plaintiff with regard to his claim in the schedule property. There is a misdescription of the schedule property in the schedule appended to the plaint. The plaintiff has to take necessary steps to incorporate necessary pleadings in the plaint. There is no merit in this appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed. No orders as to cost. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28