- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8804 MFA No. 6456 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6456 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. G RANI, W/O. L. GURUMURTHI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT NO.1114, 1st FLOOR, 8TH MAIN, KEB COLONY, BTM 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-29. R/ AT 448, SHILPASHRI 1ST FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, J. P. NAGAR, 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078. APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI N PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O. M. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. SMT. GAYATHRI, W/O. N. PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 239, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PAPPAREDDYPALYA, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072. Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8804 MFA No. 6456 of 2024 3. SMT. SAVITHA. N, D/O. NAGARAJA. M, W/O. LATE SATHISH HARAGADDE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT HARAGADDE POST, JIGANI, BENGALURU-560 015. 4. SMT. HAMSAVATHI. N D/O. NAGARAJ. M, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 5. SRI. NAGARAJ. M, S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.239, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PAPAREDDYPALYA, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R3, R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED AS PER POSTAL TRACK) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 AND 4 IN OS.NO.589/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA.NOS 3 AND 4 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ETC,. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8804 MFA No. 6456 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant / plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the order of the Trial Court on IA.Nos.III and IV under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri. Vijaya Kumar K, for the appellant and learned counsel Sri. C Shankar Reddy, for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are served and unrepresented. 4. Plaintiff said to be owner of the suit schedule property and in question of the suit schedule property purchased on 14.07.1997 in turn his vendor purchased the same on 10.06.1960, but defendant No.1 said to be executed agreement of sale and an affidavit in favour of husband of the plaintiff. However, suppressing the same the children of defendant No.1 filed suit for partition and behind back without - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8804 MFA No. 6456 of 2024 the knowledge of adding the plaintiff as party they have compromised the case and trying to interferer with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, he consent to file suit for declaration and injunction along with the interlocutory application for injunction not to interfere and also not to alienate the suit schedule property. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments dismissed the application. Hence, the appellant is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued on the pleadings mentioned in the appeal as well as in the interlocutory applications where as the defendants counsel submits they are the owner of the suit schedule property no right created under the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff where the plaintiff’s vendor do not have any right title over the property. During the pendency of the appeal both the counsels submits the parties will maintain the status quo of the suit schedule property and the defendants also not to create any thirty party interest. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view, the parties are directed to maintain status quo over - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8804 MFA No. 6456 of 2024 the suit schedule property and the defendants are directed not to alienate the property till disposals of the suit. 7. Accordingly, I proceed the following: ORDER i) The above appeal is allowed in part; ii) The order of the Trial Court is modified as under; The parties are directed to maintain their status quo of the suit schedule property and the defendants are directed to not to alienate the suit schedule property till dispose of the suit. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17