- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33414 MFA No. 2401 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2401 OF 2025 (CPC-) BETWEEN: SMT R SUGUNA D/O SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.109, 10TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION BENGALURU-560 080 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAGAR. G NAHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT N GAYATHRI D/O LATE V NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A NO.113/01, GANIGARABEEDI DEVENAHALLI TOWN, WARD NO.6 BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 2. SMT GOWRAMMA N D/O LATE V NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A NO.113/01, GANIGARABEEDI DEVENAHALLI TOWN, WARD NO.6 BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 3. SRI VENUGOPAL N S/O LATE V NARAYANASWAMY Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33414 MFA No. 2401 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A NO.113/01, GANIGARABEEDI DEVENAHALLI TOWN, WARD NO.6 BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 4. SRI VENKATESH N S/O LATE V NARAYANAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A NO.113/01, GANIGARABEEDI DEVENAHALLI TOWN, WARD NO.6 BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 5. SMT GIRIJA D/O LATE V NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.113/01, GANIGARABEEDI DEVENAHALLI TOWN, WARD NO.6 BENGALURU RURAL-562 110 6. M/S RASHI DEVELOPERS REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM AT NO.C-205 2ND FLOOR, HOUSE OF LORDS, ST. MARKS ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 7. SRI RAMANA PRASAD REDDY S/O SRINIVAS REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS PARTNER OF M/S RASHMI DEVELOPERS 8. SRI SHIVAKUMAR C UDASI S/O CHANNABASAPPA M UDASI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS PARTNER OF M/S RASHMI DEVELOPERS …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 09.06.2025, NOTICE IN RESPECT OF RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 8 IS DISPENSED WITH, RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE SERVED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33414 MFA No. 2401 of 2025 THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(R) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.1216/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, C/C OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANHALLI, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant No.7 questioning the order passed in I.A.No.I filed under XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC passed in OS No.1216/2022 dated 08.11.2024 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds. The relief sought is confined only to the suit item No.17 and not to the other - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33414 MFA No. 2401 of 2025 properties mentioned in the suit schedule. It is also the case of the Trial Court that the plaintiffs have prayed for the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 22.02.2006, executed/agreed by the father of the plaintiffs in favor of the defendant No.7, is not binding on the plaintiffs. 4. It is stated by the appellant/defendant No.7 that he had purchased the property from the father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in paragraph No.8 of the plaint aver that their father had purchased the land to the extent of 2 acres through the registered sale deed dated 29.12.1994 and therefore, the property was sold in the name of Smt. Suguna through the sale deed dated 22.02.2006. However, the suit was filed only in the year 2022. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the ground that the suit is barred by the limitation under the 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and submitted that the limitation period is 12 years from the date of the sale of the property. 6. It is submitted that, after the sale of suit schedule property by the father of the plaintiffs, he had purchased four other properties immediately thereafter the sale and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33414 MFA No. 2401 of 2025 now the suit has been filed for partition including item No.17. Therefore, considering all these factors, the plaintiffs have failed to make out a prima facie case to grant a temporary injunction insofar as suit item No.17 is concerned. Further, while the temporary injunction is in respect of all properties, it is to the case of defendant Nos.1 and 2 that she purchased the suit item No.17 from the plaintiffs’ father. 7. Therefore, considering the aforesaid factors and the limitation, the plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie case insofar as suit item No.17 of the suit schedule property is concerned. Consequently, the order insofar as against item No.17 of the suit schedule property is liable to be interfered with. 8. Therefore, the impugned order insofar as it grants injunction against attachment of the property is concerned, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I. The appeal is allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33414 MFA No. 2401 of 2025 II. The order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, in OS No.1216/2022 is hereby set aside, so far as suit property item No.17 is concerned. For remaining properties, the order passed by the Trial Court remains kept open. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63