- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5113 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. ANUSUYAMMA W/O LATE S. SUNDARA RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.61, (OLD NO.68) SOUTH END MAIN ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. DILIP KUMAR I.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. USHA D/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT GARUVE BHAVI PALYA BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 068 2. SMT. SUNANDA D/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT GARUVE BHAVI PALYA BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 068 Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 3. SMT. VIMALA W/O SRI. AYAPPA REDDY D/O SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT DODDA BANASAVADI BENGALURU-560 043 4. SMT. BHAGYA W/O SRI. MUNI REDDY D/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS ALANAYAKANAHALLI SARJAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU-560 068 5. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O SRI. SOMA REDDY D/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT D.NO.12/1, OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, 2ND CROSS, NEW MADIVALA BENGALURU-560 068 6. SMT. SAROJA G.S W/O SRI. SURESH REDDY D/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.561, 31ST MAIN 10TH CROSS, 1ST SECTOR HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102 7. DR. MANJUNATH REDDY S/O LATE SUNDARA RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 207, 2ND FLOOR BINDYA RESIDENCY, 24TH MAIN JP NAGAR 5TH PHASE BENGALURU-560 078 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 8. SMT. GIRIJAMMA @ CHANDRAKALA REDDY D/O LATE S. SUNDARA RAMA REDDY W/O SRI. RAGHUPATHI REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.61, (OLD NO.68) SOUTH END MAIN ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004 9. SRI. S. LOKESH REDDY S/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT KAGGADASAPURA KRISHNARAJAPUR HOBLI THE SOUTH TALUK, C.V. RAMAN POST BENGALURU-560 093 10. SRI. V. AYYAPPA REDDY S/O SRI. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT MANJUNATHA NILAYA NO.442, 10TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS 1ST BLOCK, KALYANANAGAR BENGALURU-560 043 11. SRI. K. DEEPAK S/O SRI. KANNAIYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.39/16, 3RD CROSS KRISHNAMOORTHY LAYOUT TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 029 12. SRI. M.S. SRIVATHSA S/O SRI. M.A. SATHYANARAYAN SETTY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.593, 4TH A CROSS 9TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE BENGALURU-560 040 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 13. SRI. M.S. SRINIVASAN S/O LATE SRI. S. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO.15, 4TH CROSS DRC POST, S.G.PALYA BENGALURU 560 029 14. SRI. PARSOTTAM BHIMJI PATEL S/O LATE SRI. BHIMJI PATEL AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT NO.46/1-9, SHAMANNA REDDY LAYOUT GARVEBHAVI PALYA, HOSUR ROAD BENGALURU-560 068 15. SRI. R.A. GUNASHEKAR S/O SRI. R. AYYASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.20, 5TH CROSS SUDHAMANAGAR TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 027 16. SRI. U.N. MANJUNATH S/O SRI. NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.1, RANGAPPA STREET CHIKKAMAVALLI BENGALURU-560 004 17. SMT. K.S. THULASI W/O SRI. KARTHIKEYAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.502, KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT BEHIND VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095 18. SRI. D. NANDA KUMAR S/O SRI. K. DORESWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 R/AT NANJUNDESHWARA BAKERY HEBBUR, T.K.ROAD TUMKUR-572 120 19. SRI. M. ELUMALAI S/O SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWNDER AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.9/22, 2ND MAIN 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR EAST BENGALURU-560 011 20. SRI. G.C. ANAND S/O SRI. G.N. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.41, N.R.LAYOUT GARVEBHAVIPALYA HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 068 21. SRI. G.R. RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE SRI. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-560 068 22. SRI. G. LAKSHMAN REDDY S/O SRI. GURAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/AT NO.50, MYLASANDRA BEGUR POST, BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU-560 068 23. SRI. N. KUMAR S/O SRI. NINGALAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.1, SHIVA KRUPA RANGAPPA LANE, CHIKKAMAVALLI BENGALURU-560 004 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 24. SRI. A. ANIL KUMAR S/O AYYAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT GARVEBAVIPALYA HOSUR ROAD, MADIVALA POST NEAR BRIGHT FUTURE SCHOOL BENGALURU-560 068 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARSHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R4 & R24; SRI. SURESH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 02.07.2025 PASSED ON IA NOS.1 TO 3 IN FDP.NO. 110/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-02, PARTLY ALLOWING THE IA.NOS 1 AND 2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND REJECTING THE IA.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal has been instituted by the appellant challenging the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.2) in FDP No.110/2025 whereby, the learned trial Court, while considering three interlocutory applications filed in the course of the final decree proceedings granted interim relief in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 directing, the parties to preserve the subject matter of the suit specifically item no.4 to 7 of the schedule properties, in the same condition as on the date of the order and restraining any party from altering the existing state of affairs in any manner that would impact the rights declared under the preliminary decree. At the same time, the application filed by the appellant seeking a similar form of protection over certain specified sites within the same item of property was rejected. The present appeal arises from the said Composite order. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 2. The facts leading to the institution of the present appeal are, traceable to a suit for partition filed in OS No.4203/1992, which culminated in passing of a preliminary decree dated 10.03.2025. Under the said decree, the trial Court recorded a finding that plaintiffs and defendants including the present appellant and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein were each entitled to a 1/10th undivided share in the properties described in the suit schedule including item Nos. 4 to 7. The decree was passed after detailed adjudication on title genealogy, and rights over the joint family properties. Although, the decree declared respective shares of the properties, the process of effecting a final partition and allotting specific properties to each of the parties remains pending in FDP No.110/2025. It is during this stage of proceedings, that the impugned interim order came to be passed. 3. It is also relevant to note that the present appellant has questioned the correctness of the preliminary decree by filing RFA NO.1214/2025 which is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 pending adjudication before this Court. The same, however, has not stayed the implementation of the preliminary decree or the proceedings in the final decree proceedings. Therefore, the preliminary decree currently stands as binding between the parties. 4. During the pendency of the FDP, respondent nos. 1 to 4 filed IA No.1 and 2 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary restraint against appellant and others from disturbing the subject properties or creating third party interest which, according to them, would result in irreparable prejudice to their share and affect eventual working out of the decree. Their apprehension was that, unless that interim protection was granted, joint properties would be fragmented, disposed of or encumbered in a manner that would be detrimental to the final division. They alleged that certain acts have already been committed by the appellant which amount to asserting exclusive rights and possession over the portions of joint - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 property despite the fact that final decree is yet to be drawn up and implemented. 5. The appellant, in turn, filed I.A. No.3 contending, that she was in settled, lawful and continuous possession of site nos. 43 to 48 falling within item no.6 of the suit schedule property and that the respondent nos. 1 to 4 had, without any legal basis attempted to interfere with her enjoyment and possession of the said portion of the property. She asserted that, her possession was supported by khatha entries and a registered sale deed and that she has erected compound walls and made improvements on the said site. According to her, interference by the respondents was unlawful and high handed and lead to he registration of police complaint and registering of FIRs, she contended that her application for protection was justified and warranted in equity and law. 6. The appellant further contended that Courts have consistently held that, in partition suits, unless partition has been effected by metes and bounds every - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 co-sharer is in joint possession of entire property, no individual co-sharer can seek injunction against other. She relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in T.Ramalingeswara Rao(Dead) through legal representatives vs. N. Madhava Rao and other reported in (2019) 4 SCC 608 wherein it was held that injunctions between co-sharers are not maintainable unless exclusive possession is established beyond doubt. According to her, the interim relief granted in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 4 coupled with the denial of her own application amounted to an unfair and inequitable order which is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties and examining the documents produced recorded a finding that, the preliminary decree had clearly declared the equal rights of all the properties and that any claim by one party of exclusive ownership or possession over any identifiable portion of the property could not be entertained at this stage. Learned trial Court had also took - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 note of the fact, that the FDP had not been concluded, and hence, there had been no formal division or allotment of specific items. In such a situation, the claim of the appellant that she was entitled to site Nos.43 to 48 was held to be inconsistent with the joint character of the property as declared under the preliminary decree. The trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that appellant had made out a case for grant of interim protection and accordingly, rejected I.A.No.3. 8. At the same time, the trial Court held that respondent nos. 1 to 4 had made out a prima facie case for securing the suit properties from any unilateral action that may jeopardize their legal rights. The trial Court observed that, in the partition suits, the courts are empowered to pass such interim orders as are necessary to preserve the joint nature of the properties and to prevent any party from disturbing the equilibrium until partition is finally effected. On that basis, the trial Court - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 allowed I.A Nos. 1 and 2 and directed the parties to preserve the existing condition of suit schedule property. 9. Having considered the rival submissions afresh, this Court finds that the directions issued by the trial Court though phrased as a `protective order', are neutral in nature and intended to maintain the integrity of suit schedule property pending the final adjudication. 10. It is settled law that, once a preliminary decree is passed declaring the respective shares of the parties, none of the parties can alienate encumber or exclusive occupy any specific portion of the property in a manner inconsistent with the joint status of the estate. Such action, if allowed to proceed unchecked may result in multiplicity of litigation and frustrate the implementation of the final decree. The concern expressed by the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in their IAs is, therefore, not unfounded. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 11. Equally, this Court finds that the appellant's grievance in so far as it pertains to her settled position and claim of improvements made is also a matter that may be looked into during the of the final decree proceedings. The trial Court while rejecting I.A.3 has not made any conclusive finding on the validity of claim; rather it is observed, that the rights of the appellant are still subject to adjudication and are bound by the preliminary decree. This reasoning cannot be faulted. In such proceedings, all questions relating to possessions, improvements, equities are to be determined in the final decree and not at the interim stage. The appellant is free to assert all claims before the trial Court and trial Court shall examine the same on their own merits and in accordance with law. 12. In the totality of circumstances, therefore, this Court is of the view that, the present appeal deserves to be disposed of with appropriate directions to ensure, that the joint nature of the properties is preserved that no party is permitted to unilaterally alter the character or - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, and that the final decree proceedings are expedited without undue delay. It is submitted that appellant's compound wall is demolished in the property stated supra and the appellant wants to get it repaired and put a shed. Again it is subject to the result of the final decree proceedings and none of the respondents shall object for the same. Accordingly, it is clarified that the interim arrangement now in place shall continue only as a measure to preserve subject matter and not as an expression of adjudication on the merits of the rights of any of the parties. 13. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is disposed of in the following terms: 14. All parties shall ensure that the properties described as Item Nos. 4 to 7 in suit schedule property are preserved in their existing condition however, the appellant is permitted to repair the damaged wall and put a shed during the pendency of final decree proceedings with the co-operation of other respondents. No parties - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 shall alienate or encumber or transfer or in any manner alter the nature and status of said properties and all parties shall refrain from interfering with peaceful enjoyment of such portions of suit schedule property as may be presently be held by another provided, such enjoyment does not violate the character of the estate. The trial Court is requested to take appropriate steps to expedite the conduct and complete the final decree proceedings and conclude expeditiously due to long pendency of this case from 1992. 15. It is also made clear that all rights, claims and objections of the parties including the appellant's assertions with respect to possession, improvements and equities are left open to be decided by the FDP Court at the time of passing the final decree. No observation made in this order shall influence the merits of such adjudication by the FDP Court. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26115 MFA No. 5113 of 2025 16. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above directions with no order as to costs. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21