- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14774 MFA No. 8719 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8719 OF 2024 (CPC-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE SADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O NO.176, AKASHYANAGARA, 2ND BLOCK, KOWDENAHALLI, DOORAVANINAGARA POST, BENGALURU - 560 016. 2. SRI. S. SRINIVAS MUTHY S/O LATE SADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O NO.176, AKASHYANAGARA, 2ND BLOCK, KOWDENAHALLI, DOORAVANINAGARA POST, BENGLAURU - 560 016. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SATISH M. DODDAMANI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SAGAR B. B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. ANJINAPPA S/O LATE SADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O NO.124, SHANTHI LAYOUT, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14774 MFA No. 8719 of 2024 6TH CROSS, KOWDENAHALLI VILLAGE, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR, DOORAVANINAGARA POST BENGALURU - 560 016. 2. SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O LATE SADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O NO.166, MM NILAYAM, 3RD FLOOR, 2C CROSS, ORIGIN HARMONY GROOVES, KURUDUSONNENAHALLI ROAD, SEEGEHALLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K. R. PURAM HOBLI, BNEGLAURU - 560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. S. NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:20.12.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2024 AND 4/2024 IN OS.NO.26318/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU CCH-73, ALLOWING THE IA.NOS 1/2024 AND 4/2024 UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14774 MFA No. 8719 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 3. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed in O.S.No.26318/2024 dated 20.12.2024, by the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, questioning the order passed on I.A.No.1/2024 and I.A.No.4/2024 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of CPC, wherein the Trial Court had allowed the applications, thereby temporary injunction was granted by restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property and also ordered to maintain the status quo, in respect of suit schedule property. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separation possession by claiming both 'A' and 'B' suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. The Trial Court is of the opinion that both the suit schedule - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14774 MFA No. 8719 of 2024 properties were acquired by the deceased Sadappa during his lifetime, therefore, they allowed the applications and granted interim order as above stated. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants confined that this appeal, only so far as the order in I.A.No.4/2024 is concerned and they are aggrieved by the order of granting by maintaining status quo. Learned counsel further submitted that the defendants will not alienate the property, therefore, submitted the order so far as, I.A.No.1/2024 from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property to be confirmed. 4. So far as the observations made by the Trial Court at paragraph 13, that both the suit schedule properties were acquired by the deceased Sadappa during his lifetime is concerned, is to be re-looked into. It is the defendants who have filed objections to I.A.No.4/2024 by contending that the suit schedule 'B' property was acquired by the defendant No.1/mother, by virtue of relinquishment deed dated 25.7.1981 from her parents. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14774 MFA No. 8719 of 2024 The defendants have filed objections by stating that the suit schedule 'B' property was not acquired by their father late Sadappa but it is acquired by defendant/mother as Stridhana property by virtue of the relinquishment deed executed by her brother. When this being the prima facie material, though the relinquishment deed dated 25.7.1981 was not produced before the Trial Court, but it is produced in this court, which prima facie shows that the defendant No.1/mother has acquired 'B' schedule property as Stridhana property and prima face attracts Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Thus whether it is available for partition or not, is possible consideration in the trial. But the defendant No.1 had gifted the 'B' schedule property in property No.3 and now defendant No.3 is constructing building over the 'B' schedule property and now by virtue of the order of the status quo, the construction of the building is stopped. Whether 'B' schedule property is acquired by the late Sadappa or it is acquired by defendant No.1 through relinquishment deed, prima facie it is shown that the defendant No.1 has - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14774 MFA No. 8719 of 2024 acquired the 'B' schedule property by virtue of relinquishment deed dated 25.1.1981. Therefore, she has gifted 'B' schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 which prima facie shows in favour of the defendant No.3. Therefore, in the said circumstances, the order of maintaining the status quo, as far as the 'B' schedule property is concerned is liable to be set aside. Further, whatever construction carried by defendant No.3 on the 'B' schedule property will be subject to result of the suit. Therefore, the order passed on I.A.No.4/2024, so far as maintaining status quo of 'B' schedule property is concerned, is liable to be set aside/modified. Hence, the appeal requires to be allowed in part. 5. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The order passed on I.A.No.1/2024 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, so - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14774 MFA No. 8719 of 2024 far as the granting of temporary injunction and restraining the defendants from alienating and encumbering the suit schedule property is concerned, is confirmed. (iii) The order passed on I.A.No.4/2024 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, directing to maintain status quo, so far as the 'B' schedule property is concerned, is hereby modified/set aside. (iv) The defendant No.3 may go on with the construction of the building on 'B' schedule property, but this is subject to result of the suit. (v) The Trial Court shall take recourse for expeditious trial and dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT:SK