- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53590 MFA No. 3685 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3685 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. R.PUNEETH REDDY S/O RAGHU REDDY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO. 218, 2ND CROSS, RAMAIAH LAYOUT, KACHARAKANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 084. 2. SRI. R.YESWANTH REDDY S/O RAGHU REDDY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RA/T NO.218, 2ND CROSS RAMAIAH LAYOUT, KACHARAKANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 084. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.R.SUBRAMANYA ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ATHMA V HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. C. RAGHU REDDY S/O LATE CHICKKAVEERAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 1081, 6TH CROSS HENNUR MAIN ROAD, KACHARAKANAHALLI, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU - 560 084. 2. SMT. C. PREMA W/O LATE CHICKKAVEERAPPA REDDY Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53590 MFA No. 3685 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RA/T NO. 16-0, KACHARAKANAHALLI HENNUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 084. 3. SRI. A.M.UMESH, S/O LATE H MUNIRAJU AGED ABOTU 43 YEARS R/AT NO. 160, KACHARAKANAHALLI HENNUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 084. 4. SRI. A.M. VINAY S/O LATE H. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO. 33, GABRIEL COURT, HUNSLET LEDS LSIO, I DH, U.K. 5. SMT. M. PUNEETHA D/O LATE H MUNIRAJU W/O S. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT N. RESIDENCY KAGGADASAPURA,4TH A CROSS, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 070. 6. SRI. NASER HUMAYUN S/O LATE SYED ALI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT FERNS RESIDENCY OFF HENNUR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 084. 7. SMT. IFFATH FATHIMA W/O SRI. NASEER HUMAYUN AGED MAJOR R/AT. FERNS RESIDENCY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53590 MFA No. 3685 of 2024 OFF HENNUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 084. 8. SRI. JAVEED HAROON S/O LATE SYED ALI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT 20 30TH CROSS, ROAD, BANNERGHATTA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 041. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8; NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R1 TO R5) THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.04.04.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.4 IN O.S.NO.908/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REJECTING IA NO.4 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs questioning the order dated 04.04.2024 passed on I.A.No.4 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC for temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.6 to 8 and their agents from developing/improving the suit schedule property and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53590 MFA No. 3685 of 2024 putting up of construction on the suit schedule property, thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition claiming 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule property by stating that defendant No.1 is their father and he has obtained the property through grandfather in partition to the extent of 1 acre 10 guntas. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property and when the plaintiffs were minors, defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property on 26.07.2000 in favour of one Syed Ali. The said Syed Ali gifted the suit schedule property on 10.01.2001 in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 8. 3. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 have executed the confirmation deed of sale effected by defendant No.1 in favour of Syed Ali. Therefore, claiming that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property and during their - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53590 MFA No. 3685 of 2024 minority, defendant No.1 has sold, which is detrimental interest of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition. 4. The plaintiffs filed the application for temporary injunction praying to restrain defendant Nos.6 to 8 and their agents from developing/improving the suit schedule property and putting up of construction on the suit schedule property, but it is dismissed. 5. It is the case of the defendants that defendant No.1 has sold the property on 26.07.2000 in favour of Syed Ali and later defendant Nos.6 to 8 have become the owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of gift deed dated 10.01.2001. Therefore, it is submitted that the suit is filed after twenty years, which is barred by limitation. Further it is submitted that defendant No.1 was placed exparte. Hence, it is collusive suit between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5. Therefore, justified the order passed by the trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53590 MFA No. 3685 of 2024 6. Upon considering the rival submissions and material produced at this stage, the points that arise for consideration are as under: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs make out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the trial Court so as to grant order of temporary injunction? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs make 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 the plaintiffs would suffer any irreparable loss or injury? (iv) Whether the order passed by the trial Court needs interference or not? 7. The suit is filed for partition claiming 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule property. Admittedly, defendant No.1 acquired the property through partition from his father. The plaintiffs are claiming share in the ancestral - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53590 MFA No. 3685 of 2024 property. Whether the property is in the nature of ancestral property is the question for trial, but the fact remains that the suit property is not self acquired property of defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiffs have prima facie case to claim share on the suit property, but in the meantime, defendant No.1 has sold the suit property on 26.07.2000 in favour of one Syed Ali and had parted with the ownership. 8. There is no material produced at this stage that whether defendant No.1 has obtained permission of the Court for sale of the land, which is having minors interest also to sell the land on behalf of the minors. Therefore, the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case and balance of convenience to claim share in the suit property. 9. It is the case of defendant Nos.6 to 8 that when defendant No.1 has parted with the ownership of the land on 26.07.2000 and the suit is filed after 20 years and by this time, defendant Nos.6 to 8 had started construction of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53590 MFA No. 3685 of 2024 the apartments. Therefore, at the most even if the suit is decreed, the plaintiffs will get 1/3rd share each on the land according to the value as on the date of filing of the suit, which is filed in the year 2019. 10. In more or less circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mandali Ranganna & Others Vs., T. Ramachandra & Others1 at paragraph No.27 observed as follows: “27. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if while allowing the respondents to carry out constructions of the buildings, the same is made subject to the ultimate decision of the suit. The Trial Court is requested to hear out and dispose of the suit as early as possible. If any third party interest is created upon completion of the constructions, the deeds in question shall clearly stipulate that the matter is subjudice and all sales shall be subject to the ultimate decision of the suit. All parties must cooperate in the early hearing and disposal of the suit. The respondents must also furnish sufficient security before the learned Trial Judge within four weeks from the date which, for the time being, is assessed at Rupees One Crore.” 11. Therefore, this Court also while following the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1 (2008) 11 SCC 1 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53590 MFA No. 3685 of 2024 Mandali Ranganna’s case (stated supra) at paragraph No.27 as above stated and when the plaintiffs have prima facie case and balance of convenience to get share in the property, in case the suit is decreed, therefore, it is necessary to reserve 2/3rd of value of the suit property according to the valuation as on the date of filing of the suit or its equivalent terms. 12. Now, it is the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that as on the date of filing of the suit, the value of the land was Rs.80,00,0000/-. Therefore, if defendant Nos.6 to 8 are asked to deposit Rs.80,00,000/-, although it is more than what the claim of the plaintiffs, but that would protect the interest of the plaintiffs in case the suit is decreed. Therefore, it is directed to defendant Nos.6 to 8 to deposit Rs.80,00,000/- before the trial Court in which the suit is pending and the trial Court is directed to pass order directing to invest the said amount in any Nationalized Bank so as to earn - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53590 MFA No. 3685 of 2024 interest. Accordingly, answered point Nos.1 to 3 in affirmative and point No.4 in partly affirmative. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order dated 04.04.2024 passed on I.A.No.4 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC for temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.6 to 8 and their agents from developing/improving the suit schedule property and putting up of construction on the suit schedule property, is hereby set aside. (iii) The appellants/plaintiffs shall deposit a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- as security towards protection of interest of appellants/plaintiffs and whatever construction has been put up by the appellants/plaintiffs would be subject to result of the suit and attracting Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, lis pendens. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53590 MFA No. 3685 of 2024 (iv) The trial court is directed to invest the above said deposited amount in any Nationalised Bank so as to earn interest. (v) Whatever observations made are subject to result of the suit and attract Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (vi) All contentions are left open. (vii) The trial Court without getting influenced by the above said observations shall consider the suit independently after receiving evidence and pass appropriate order as per law. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53590 MFA No. 3685 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SRI R PUNEETH REDDY AND ANOTHER VS. SRI C RAGHU REDDY AND OTHERS] 04.02.2026 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL ORDER Order on ‘being spoken to’ This Court on 16.12.2025 has disposed of the appeal. There is typographical error due to inadvertence in clause (iii) of operative portion of order in paragraph No.13 in page No.10, wherein, the words ‘the appellants/ plaintiffs shall deposit a sum of Rs.80,00,000/-’, are required to be replaced with the words ‘the defendants No.6 to 8 shall deposit a sum of Rs.80,00,000/-’. 2. In paragraph No.12 at page No.9 of the judgment, there is a direction to defendant Nos.6 to 8 to deposit Rs.80,00,000/-, but it is wrongly mentioned in the operative portion of the order at clause (iii) as - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53590 MFA No. 3685 of 2024 appellants/plaintiffs to deposit the amount. Therefore, the operative portion of the order at clause (iii) in page No.10 it is ordered that ‘the defendant Nos.6 to 8 shall deposit a sum of Rs.80,00,000/-’. Therefore, clause (iii) of the operative portion in page No.10 of the judgment dated 16.12.2025 shall be read as follows: (iii) The defendant Nos.6 to 8 shall deposit a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- as security towards protection of interest of appellants/plaintiffs and whatever construction has been put up by the appellants/plaintiffs would be subject to result of the suit and attracting Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, lis pendens. 3. This order shall be read in conjunction with the Judgment dated 16th December, 2025. 4. Registry to furnish a fresh free copy of judgment to the parties. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1