- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46236 MFA No. 3585 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3585 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: G. S. VIJAY KUMAR, S/O G.H. SHARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A SAGANAKAL VILLAGE, BELLARY TALUK AND DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI D PRABHAKAR AND SRI RAGHUNATH C, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. G. H. SHARANAPPA, S/O. GADDE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 2. G S YATHIRAJ, S/O G H SHARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 3. G S NANDHA RAJ, S/O G H SHARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 4. SMT R DHAKSHAYINI, S/O G H SHARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT: PLOT NO.202, CREATIVE SURAJ APARTMENT, NEAR VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE, C.P.V. BLOCK, GANGA NAGAR EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 032. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: NO.112, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46236 MFA No. 3585 of 2024 PRESIDENT LEAON APARTMENT, DUO MARVEL LAYOUT, ANANTHAPURA GATE, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560064. 5. SRI. E. PREMKUMAR S/O. K. SAMBASHIVA RAO, C/O. KHADAR BASHA, MAJOR, HOUSE NO. 28, WARD NO. 35, SIRUGUPPA ROAD, HAVAMBHAVI, BALLARI-583 103. AND ALSO AT: FLAT NO. F3, 3RD FLOOR, SRI BALAJI RESIDENCY, BESIDE WOMAN'S COLLEGE, GANDHINAGAR, BALLAI-583 103. OFFICE AT M/S. SRI RAM CHITS, MANAGER, NEAR DURGAMMA TEMPLE, MOKA ROAD, BALLARI 583 103. 6. SRI. B. B. MALLIKARJUNA GOUDA, S/O. B. ANNAJI GOUDA, MAJOR, R/A PLOT NO. 14A, GURU KRUPA COLONY, NEHRU COLONY, 4TH CROSS, BALLAI 583 103. 7. SRI. B. SHANKAR GOUDA S/O. LATE. BHEEMALINGANA GOUDA, MAJOR, R/A BEVINAHAL VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 583 101. 8. SRI. DANIEL RAJKAMAL A, S/O. LATE. A. VICTOR EDWIN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A NO.293, 2ND CROSS, 5TH STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46236 MFA No. 3585 of 2024 9. SRI. SARAVANAN C N S/O. M. NATARAJAN, MAJOR, R/A NO. 23, SHREE RADHA, 1ST 'A' MAIN, SRI. VENKATE GOUDA LAYOUT, PAMPA EXTENSION, KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL, BENGALURU - 560 024. 10. SMT. SAISREE ASHOK, W/O. SRI. K. ASHOK, MAJOR, R/A NO. 686, 8TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079. 11. SRI. SHASHIBHUSHAN, S/O. RUDRA SHETTY, MAJOR, R/A NO.03/C-3, 6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, GANGA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. 12. SRI. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, S/O. JAYASHETTY, MAJOR, R/A KARNODY HOUSE VILLY, LILA POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK-574 214. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B G VIJAYAKUMARA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, SRI KIRAN V RON AND SRI PAVANSIMHA, ADV. FOR C/R7) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.2 IN O.S.NO. 4590/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH- 18), REJECTING I.A. NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 94 AND UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46236 MFA No. 3585 of 2024 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 15.04.2024 passed by the Court of XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-18), in O.S.No.4590/2019, on I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Sections 94 and 151 of CPC, thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is dismissed. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession by pleading that the plaintiff is the son of defendant No.1 born through his first wife of defendant No.1. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of defendant No.1 through his second wife, who is defendant No.4. It is pleaded that all the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and thus, he is entitled to share in the properties. Hence, filed the suit for partition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46236 MFA No. 3585 of 2024 3. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants in brief as pleaded in the written statement that item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties are only joint family properties and other properties are not joint family properties. 4. Learned counsel for the proposed respondent Nos.6 and 7, who are purchasers of item No.2 property submitted that the suit item No.2 property had been purchased by mother of defendant No.1 by name Siddamma and thereafter, she has gifted item No.2 property in favour of defendant No.1. Therefore, submitted that it is the joint family property. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submitted that except item No.2 property all other properties are self acquired properties of defendant No.1 and submitted that the defendant No.1 and his brothers have purchased item No.2 property in a Court auction. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46236 MFA No. 3585 of 2024 6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both parties and perused the records. (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out prima facie case on the basis of materials produced before the trial court? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out case of balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? (iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted then plaintiff would suffer any irreparable loss or injury? 7. The suit is for partition and separate possession. In so far as item Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, there is no dispute that these properties are joint family properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that all the properties are joint family properties. The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that all the properties have been purchased in a Court auction by defendant No.1 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46236 MFA No. 3585 of 2024 his brothers, but here there is no convincing material to show that defendant No.1 had purchased the properties in a Court auction. 8. Siddamma who is the mother of defendant No.1 had purchased item No.2 in the year 1994 and thus, she has become absolute owner as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is not disputed that the said Siddamma had gifted the suit item No.2 property in favour of defendant No.1. Therefore, whether the item No.2 property is coming within the category of joint family property is a question for trial. The application filed for temporary injunction is only to restrain the defendants from making alienation of the suit schedule property and if temporary injunction is granted restraining the defendants from alienating the property except item No.2 property is concerned, that would not cause any loss or injury to the defendants. Otherwise, if the suit schedule properties are alienated then the plaintiff would be put into loss and injury, besides leading to multiplicity of proceedings. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46236 MFA No. 3585 of 2024 Therefore, the plaintiff has made out prima facie case to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property except suit item No.2 property. 9. As above discussed item No.2 property was purchased by mother of the defendant No.1 and the mother Siddamma had gifted item No.2 to the defendant No.1 and subsequently, respondent No.7 had purchased the property. The plaintiff is successful in making out balance of convenience in part except item No.2 property so as to grant temporary injunction except item No.2 is concerned and if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiff certainly would sustain injury and loss. Therefore, the plaintiff’s right and interest necessarily has to be protected. Therefore, I answer point No.1 to 3 in the partly affirmative. 10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46236 MFA No. 3585 of 2024 ORDER (1) The appeal is allowed in part. (2) The order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Court of XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-18), in O.S.No.4590/2019, on I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Sections 94 and 151 of CPC, is set aside. (3) An order of temporary injunction is granted restraining the defendants from making alienation of the suit schedule properties except item No.2 in the schedule. (4) Whatever the observations made above are only tentative for the purpose of considering the application filed for temporary injunction and shall not be construed as discussions on the merits involved in the case; hence, the Trial Court - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46236 MFA No. 3585 of 2024 is directed to consider the suit in accordance with law after receiving the evidence from both the sides independently without being influenced by any of the observations made above. (5) No costs. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26