- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38374 MFA No. 1786 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1786 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. N. PUTTAMMA WIFE OF NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1, 1ST CROSS, B. BASAVALINGAPPA NAGAR, BILEKAHALLI, BEGUR HOBLI BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE SOUTH - 560 076 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI YELLAPPA SON OF LATE NASHEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 2. SRI. RAMESH SON OF N. YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANASWAMY SON OF N. YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 RESIDING AT NO.99, 3RD CROSS, B. BASAVALINGAPPA NAGAR BILEKAHALLI, BEGUR HOBLI BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE SOUTH 560 076 Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38374 MFA No. 1786 of 2025 4. SRI. N. KAVERIAPPA SON OF THE LATE NASHEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 5. SRI. K. MANJUNATH @ MANJAPPA SON OF KAVERIAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 6. SMT. SHASHIKALA DAUGHTER OF KAVERIAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE, A.K. COLONY, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 7. SRI. M.K. KONAPPA SON OF THE LATE KONAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.10/A, 6TH B MAIN 11TH CROSS JP NAGAR, III PHASE BANGALORE 560 078. 8. SRI. K. BABU SON OF M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.86, 13TH CROSS 20TH MAIN, II PHASE JP NAGAR BANGALORE- 560 078. 9. SRI. R. THANIGE MALAI SON OF SRI. RAMAMURTHY MUDALIAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1140/27, 2ND FLOOR, 20TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE 560 010. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38374 MFA No. 1786 of 2025 10. SRI OBALARAJU SON OF SRI. CHANGAMARAJA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 18, 39TH 'G' CROSS 11TH MAIN ROAD, MARATHAHALLI TANK BAND, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560041. 11. SRI. SYED ALIMULLA SON OF LATE S.A. JALEEL AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9, 7TH CROSS PANDURANGANAGAR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, PROPRIETOR S.A DEVELOPERS 12. SRI. RAJAPPA, SON OF LATE SHAMBAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEAR, RAT ATTIBELE VILLAGE' CHIKKANAHALLI ROAD, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU. 13. SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR V. SON OF R. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT MALENALLASANDRA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560105 14. SRI. SAI KIRAN SUBRAMANI SON OF SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.201, BANK STREET PERIYAMEETTOOR, VINNAMPALLI, VENNAMPALLE, VELLOR TAMILNADU 632516 15. SRI.RAMAMOORTHY SON OF VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38374 MFA No. 1786 of 2025 RESIDING AT KEMPANAIKANAHALLI VILLAGE BANNERGHATTA POST JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-560 105 16. SMT.RAMA DEVI Y WIFE OF ETHINDRA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT HARAPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560 105 17. SMT. GOGIDI SREEDEVI WIFE OF GOGIDI HARINATH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.146, 1ST FLOOR 6TH CROSS, ROYAL HERMITAGE OPPOSITE SHEREWOOD HIGH SCHOOL KOTTIGERE, B.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 083. 18. SMT.VANI J WIFE OF K.VENKAGESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5, 2ND MAIN 5TH CROSS, HANUMAGIRI NAGAR CHIKKAKALASANDRA BENGALURU 560 061 19. SMT.SHASHIKALA WIFE OF KUMAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA, MODI NAGAR, JIGANI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 560 105 20. SMT. BHARATHI M.S. WIFE OF NAVEEN KUMAR B.H. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT KAYANAPPA ROAD - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38374 MFA No. 1786 of 2025 BEVINAHALLI NEAR LAKE ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DIST.-573 112 21. SMT. VIDYASHREE S. WIFE OF SRINIVASAIAH M AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.92. 1ST MAIN, III CROSS, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, AREKERE NEAR MICO LAYOUT, B.G. ROAD BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU-560 076 22. SMT. ZOYA TAQANNUM DAUGHTER OF LATELAE AMEER PASHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.31, 1ST MAIN 5TH CROSS, LALAJI NAGA LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU 560-030 23. SRI. V.IMMANUEL JOSHUA SON OF B.VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.303, 3RD FLOOR ELITE APARTMENT, 6TH CROSS ANANGHA NAGAR, PHASE-2 KAMMASANDRA, ELECTRONIC CITY, PHASE-2 BENGALURU-560 100. 24. SRI. RAKESH SON OF SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9 NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, HOSSADODDI KYLAANCHA HOBLI LAKKOJALLI POST, LAKKOJALLI, RAMANAGARA 562159 25. SRI. NARAYAN.V SON OF VAJARAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.122, 1ST CROSS - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38374 MFA No. 1786 of 2025 OPPOSITE KALYANI KALA MANDIRA BILEKAHALLI, IIMB POST BENNERGHATTA ROAD BENGLAURU-560 076. 26. SMT. ANUSHA E WIFE OF MANUNATH K.P AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.337 1ST CROSS,, ARAKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGAHU 560076 27. SRI. MURALI KUMAR M.K SON OF KODANDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 28. SRI. ARUN KUMAR M.K SON OF NODANDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.27 AND 28 R/AT MANTAPPA GRAMA, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 560 083. 29. SMT.C.LOURDU MARY W/O CRISTU RAJ.A AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.187, 12TH CROSS, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, KORAMANGALA, VIVEKANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560047 30. SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR N. SON OF R. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.23, 45/2 NEAR MILK DIARY, BEGIHALLI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU 560 105 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38374 MFA No. 1786 of 2025 31. SRI. MOHAMMED YOUSUF SON OF SHAIK AHMED AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING NO.489/28 13TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU-560 027. 32. SRI. JAGADEESH P. SON OF PARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT BANNERGHATTA ROAD BASAVALINGAPPA NAGAR BILEKAHALLI, 5TH CFOSS BENGALURU 560 076. 33. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU- 560 001. 34. SMT. MUNA @ MUNIYAMMA WIFE OF LATE GULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.05, 1ST CROSS, AMBEDKAR COLONY, ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE - 562107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KAUSHIK GOWDA.S., ADVOCATE C/R13; SRI. SANDEEP LAHIRI.K, ADVOCATE FOR R13.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.19.02.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.21 AND 26 IN O.S.NO.8462/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-36), DISMISSING THE IA NO.21 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, ALLOWING IA NO.26 FILED U/O.39 RULE 4 OF CPC. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38374 MFA No. 1786 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff questioning the order dated 19.02.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.21, 22 and 26 in O.S.No.8462/2013 passed by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-36). 2. The plaintiffs have filed suit for partition and separate possession of claiming 1/4th share each to the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property. 3. The applications filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC are dismissed on the reason that whatever alienations are made that would be subject to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, dismissed the applications. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38374 MFA No. 1786 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that the defendants are holding only 2 guntas of land and before that there is no land available for reserving 18 guntas of land. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 5. This Court on 02.05.2025 has granted an order of temporary injunction prohibiting the defendants from alienating 18 guntas of land and also not to put up any construction over 18 guntas of land and shall earmark the 18 guntas of land on the suit schedule property. 6. Upon considering the pleadings in the plaint and in the written statement, the relationship between the parties in the suit and schedule property is ancestral and joint family property is not in dispute. The plaintiff/appellant is admittedly one of the coparcener. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38374 MFA No. 1786 of 2025 Sharma and others1 case has observed that the interest of the coparcener shall be protected. Therefore, this Court on 02.05.2025 has ordered that the defendants to preserve and protect 18 guntas of land. 7. When the suit is filed for partition, each coparcener has an inherent right to claim the partition, and such right is to be recognized and protected. Otherwise it would lead multiplicity of proceedings. Also as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that now the suit is set down for cross- examination of some of the purchasers. When this being the fact, there is no need to vacate the interim order. 8. Also, considering the fact that the plaintiff/appellant is one of the coparcener is having inherent right to claim the share in the property and he has filed suit for partition and separate possession of claiming 1/4th share each to the plaintiffs in the suit 1 AIR 2020 SC 1717 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38374 MFA No. 1786 of 2025 schedule property. Therefore, the trial Court has made the observation that if any transaction made during the pendency of the suit is definitely hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, that alone would not protect the interest of the coparcener. Hence, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to protect the right of the plaintiff over his share, the order of the trial Court requires interference. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for order of temporary injunction. Hence, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the order of temporary injunction is granted restraining the defendants from making alienation of 18 guntas of land as observed in the order dated 02.05.2025. 9 Accordingly, an order of temporary injunction is granted restraining the defendants from making alienation of 18 guntas of land and preserve the same as it is as on today. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38374 MFA No. 1786 of 2025 10. Therefore, the impugned order dated 19.02.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.21, 22 and 26 in O.S.No.8462/2013 by the Court of XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set-aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 11. Whatever the observations made above shall not be construed as merits, as the same are only on the basis of submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant & defendants and the observations made by the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court shall decide the suit independently on merits of the suit based on the evidence to be adduced. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18