- 1 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4053 OF 2025 (CPC) c/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3675 OF 2025 (CPC) IN MFA NO.4053/2025 BETWEEN: SMT SAKAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATARAMANACHARI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO. 85, 5TH CROSS, PUTTENAHALLI MAIN ROAD, K.R. ROAD, J.P. NAGAR VI PHASE, JP NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 068. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV.) AND: SMT VEDAVATHI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O LATE CHIDANANDACHARY V., R/A NO.175/A, 4TH H BLOCK, GUBBALALA, NEAR SHANIMATHMA TEMPLE, BDA LAYOUT, BSK 6TH STAGE, BENGALURU - 560061. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR M., ADV.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 20.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 2 IN O.S.NO.6670/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-25, ALLOWING THE IA NO.2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908. - 2 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 IN MFA NO.3675/2025 BETWEEN: SMT SAKAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAMANACHARI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO. 85, 5TH CROSS, PUTTENAHALLI MAIN ROAD, K.R. LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR VI PHASE, BENGALURU 560 078. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV.) AND: SMT VEDAVATHI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.175/A, 4TH H BLOCK, GUBBALALA, NEAR SHANIMATHMA TEMPLE, BDA LAYOUT, BSK 6TH STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 061. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR M, ADV.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 20.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.6670/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-25, ALLOWING THE IA.NO. 1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 CAV JUDGMENT Both these appeals arise out of Order dated 20th March 2025, passed on IA No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in Original Suit No.6670 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-35) at Bengaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this case are that respondent- Smt. Vedavathi, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of house property bearing number 175/A of extended Banashankari 6th Phase (Vrushabhavatinagar), 4th ‘H’ Block, formed by Bangalore Development Authority ad- measuring East to West 9 meters and North to South 6 meters with the House comprising Ground, First & Second floors and bounded by: East: site number 194/A; West: Road; North: site number 174/A; and South: site number 176/A - 4 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 4. Along with the plaint, plaintiff filed application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to restrain the defendant, her men, agents, or anyone claiming through or under her from alienating the suit schedule property. In support of the application, plaintiff has sworn to affidavit in which she has stated that after the death of her husband-V Chidanandachari, she continued to reside in the schedule property and is in possession and enjoyment of the same being the sole legal heir and successor of late V. Chidanandachari. She has also produced the documents such as Aadhar card, voter's card, gas connection receipt, and photographs of the schedule property for having been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. 5. When things stood thus, the defendant by colluding with her other sons, started to harass the plaintiff, and her sons came near the house and asked to leave the house. Colluding with her brother-in-laws, Defendant is illegally trying to sell the house property by without the plaintiff's knowledge and also trying to encumber the suit schedule property by forging the signatures of the plaintiff. It is stated that in the - 5 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 event, if the defendant alienates or encumbers and if the plaintiff is dispossessed from the suit schedule property or sell the same, there would be multiplicity of proceedings and on all these grounds it was sought to allow the application. 6. The defendant has filed memo adopting her written statement as objection to the said Interlocutory Application. In her written statement, defendant has stated that the suit schedule property belongs to the defendant as sole and absolute owner of the same, and as such, the plaintiff had no legal right whatsoever, as the plaintiff is neither a family member nor has anything to do with the defendant. It is contended that the defendant is no more the owner of the property and has gifted the same in favour of her two sons, and the plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of Late V Chidanandachari. The plaintiff has not made out any ground to allow the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the application. 7. On hearing the arguments, the trial Court has allowed the Application IA No.2 and granted the temporary injunction - 6 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 as sought for. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant/appellant-Sakamma, has preferred these appeals. Submissions on behalf of the appellant/defendant: 8. Sri T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from perversity and submits that the trial Court has reached to an erroneous conclusion that the schedule property stands in the joint names of the appellant and late V Chidanandachari, contrary to the pleadings and registered documents on record. This fact is admitted by the respondent in the plaint, and the suit property stands solely in the name of the appellant. The registered documents produced along with the plaint clearly shows that the suit schedule property stands in the name of the appellant. The appellant has also produced the property tax receipts along with the plaint, to substantiate that the property stands in the name of the appellant. Further he would submit that the Trial Court has passed the impugned order ignoring the registered partition deed dated 13th September 2011, which is an admitted document. This registered partition deed clearly states that late V Chidanandachari is not allotted any share, but - 7 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 is entitled to enjoy the usufructs of the share allotted to the appellant with her consent. The appellant is to hold the share allotted to her during her lifetime and transfer the same after her lifetime to V Chidanandachari. In the event Chidanandachari predeceases her, she would be the absolute owner of her share, and after her lifetime, the share allotted to her, shall devolve to her other sons, Sri V Shashidharachari and Sri V Srinivasachari. It is submitted that the appellant sold the share allotted to her vide registered sale deed dated 13th September 2011 and subsequently purchased the property as the sole and absolute owner. As V Chidanandachari pre- deceased the appellant, the share allotted to the appellant became her absolute property and the respondent has no right to claim the suit schedule property as the successor or as a legal heir of late V Chidanandachari. It is pertinent to note that the suit schedule property stands in the sole name of the appellant and not in the joint names of the appellant and late V Chidanandachari, as erroneously held by the trial Court. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel that the trial Court has failed to consider the contention of the appellant that she gifted the suit schedule property to Sri V Shashidharachari and Sri V Srinivasachari vide registered gift deed dated 22nd - 8 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 December 2023, and she is no longer the owner of the suit schedule property. 9. He would submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant gifted the suit schedule property to Sri V Shashidharachari and Sri V Srinivasachari vide registered Gift deed dated 22nd December 2023, and the respondent preferred the suit belatedly on 18th September 2024, while the order impugned is passed on 20th March 2025 by the trial Court, whereby the temporary injunction is granted in a suit filed against the previous owner after a period of more than one year after the transfer of the suit property by way of a registered document. The trial Court ought to have appreciated that the respondent had not established that the balance of convenience lies in her favour in view of the long lapse of time since execution of the gift deed. 10. Further, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the appellant’s contention that the suit suffers from non-joinder of parties. That the respondent has failed to establish that she would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the interim relief is not granted. The learned Counsel further submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the contention of the - 9 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 appellant that the marriage of V Chidanandachari with Smt. Dhanalakshmi was dissolved in MC No. 1771 of 2021 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru vide order dated 1st April 2021, and the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of late V Chidanandachari. It was also contented by the appellant that the respondent has not been divorced from her first husband and that she cannot claim to be the wife of late V Chidanandachari by merely residing with him. In view of the above, the respondent has no interest, right or title over the suit schedule property. He submits that the impugned order is passed by ignoring all the material pleadings and the documents placed on record. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal. He would specifically submit that the observations made in paragraph 10 of the impugned order is apparently wrong, illegal, and contrary to the pleadings of the parties. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the appeal. Submissions on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff: 12. As against this Sri Ashok Kumar M, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the - 10 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 trial Court has appreciated the material on record produced by the respondent that the plaintiff-Smt. Vedavathi is the legally wedded wife of late V Chidanandachari and has produced Original Aadhaar card, Voter card, the original gas connection receipts, original death certificate of late V Chidanandachari, medical certificate issued by Abhaya Hospital with regard to cause of death, death ceremony of late V Chidanandachari and the photographs. Considering all the materials, the trial Court has opined that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case that the balance of convenience lies in her favour and accordingly, granted the temporary injunction as sought for. He submitted absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the order impugned passed by the trial Court. On all these grounds he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Perusal of the material documents placed before the trial Court reveals that the plaintiff-Smt. Vedavathi filed Suit for partition and separate possession of suit property contending that plaintiff is the wife of Sri Chidanandachari and the defendant is the mother of said Chidanandachari, who is the mother-in-law of the plaintiff. The husband of the plaintiff was suffering from liver related disease and died on 30th October - 11 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 2023 at Abhaya Hospital, Bengaluru, and his body was cremated at Wilson Garden crematoria. The plaintiff and V Chidanandachari had no issues out of their wedlock. Both the plaintiff and the defendant were residing at the address shown in the cause title. After the death of her husband, the plaintiff has been continuing to reside in the suit property, and is in possession and enjoyment of the same being the sole legal heir and successor of Late V Chidanandachari. Originally, as per partition held on 13th September 2011 among the husband of the plaintiff and the defendant and her other children, viz. V Shashidharchari, V Srinivasachari and late Padmavathi as per the document No.1343/2011-12 in office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, two properties were allotted to the joint share of V Chidanandachari and defendant, for which they became joint owners. Since the husband of the plaintiff was addicted to alcohol, in the property document, the name of the defendant was not continued on behalf of V Chidanandachari, thinking that he may lose his share of the properties if it is registered in his name and so that the properties would be registered in the name of the defendant. However, the husband of plaintiff-V Chidanandachari would enjoy his share and other income along with his mother. Later, the defendant and the husband of the - 12 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 plaintiff sold the said two properties on 05th October 2012 and purchased a House property bearing No.8 situated at Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South, on 31st October 2012. However, the said property was also purchased in the name of the defendant and the plaintiff and V Chidanandachari were residing at the said house till her late husband and the defendant who sold the said property on 17th January 2019. Out of the sale proceedings of the properties sold on 17th January 2019 by the plaintiff's husband Late Chidanandachari and the defendant, they purchased the site bearing No.175/A, 4th ‘H’ Block, Banashankari 6th stage, Bengaluru on 19th January 2019, from one Smt. Prabhamani and Smt. Manjula vide sale deed registered as document No.JPN- 1-10215-2018-19, CD No.JPND539 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, JP Nagar, Bangalore. 14. Initially, the schedule property was proposed to be purchased in the joint name of plaintiff, finally, the sale deed was registered in the name of the defendant. When the plaintiff asked the defendant as to why the same was not purchased in her name as decided, the defendant had promised that since his son was an alcoholic and spendthrift, he may also - 13 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 force the plaintiff to sell the property if the same is purchased in her name and hence, promised the plaintiff that anyhow, her son is also the owner of the schedule property along with her, and after sometime when her son would become normal, she would transfer the schedule property in the name of her son V Chidanandachari and the plaintiff. Thereafter, the original documents of the schedule property were handed over directly from the previous owners of the schedule property to the plaintiff and her husband. The defendant also advised the plaintiff to keep the said original document away from her husband i.e., V Chidanandachari and asked the plaintiff to manage the schedule property. It is further submitted that after they purchased the schedule property, her husband and the plaintiff constructed a house in the schedule property out of the sale proceedings accrued from the property sold by Late V Chidanandachari and the defendant and plaintiff have also contributed to the construction of the house out of her savings and after the completion of the construction of the house building in the year 2019, the plaintiff and her husband V Chidanandachari started to reside in the schedule property. It is further submitted that till the plaintiff’s husband V Chidanandachari was alive, the defendant was maintaining - 14 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 cordial relationship with the plaintiff and his son, and would always assure the plaintiff that she would not give the share to her son Chidanandachari, till he gives up his alcoholic addiction and would transfer the same in the name of the plaintiff at the appropriate time. After the death of the husband of the plaintiff, the plaintiff sought for partition of the schedule property and requested the defendant to give her husband’s share, so that she would lead her life peacefully. But the defendant kept postponing the partition. Thereafter, plaintiff came to know about the foul activities of the defendant and her other sons that she went on postponing the partition of schedule property on one or the other pretext. The defendant also started avoiding the plaintiff and was threatening her of dire consequences. 15. It is further stated that defendant started to show her true colours by colluding with her other sons, and used to harass the plaintiff and asked her to leave the house and that she would be compensated after sometime and further, the defendant and her other sons were threatening the plaintiff that she would be thrown out of the house and would make her life miserable. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant is - 15 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 legally trying to sell the schedule property by colluding with her brother-in-laws without the knowledge of the plaintiff and also trying to encumber the schedule property by forging the signatures of the plaintiff. The advice given by the well-wishers and the neighbours to the defendant and her sons not to harass the plaintiff who is also their family member and to give her lawful share, went in vain. On all these grounds, it was sought to decree the suit. 16. Defendant-Sakamma filed written statement contending that suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The document produced by herself shows that the suit property belongs to the defendant as a sole and absolute owner of the same and as such the plaintiff had no legal right whatsoever on the same as the plaintiff is neither a family member nor has nothing to do with the defendant. That the above suit was filed on 18th September 2024 for the relief of partition against the defendant, and as on the date of filing the suit, the defendant had no right, title or interest as admittedly, the schedule property has been gifted by the defendant jointly in favour of two sons i.e., V Shashidharachari and V Srinivasachari, who were her first and third sons, vide - 16 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 registered gift deed dated 22nd December 2023 as it was her self-acquired property, and she had got every right to deal with the same in whatever manner she likes. Further, it is submitted that Late V Chidanandachari was the second son of the defendant who was married to Smt. Dhanalakshmi on 22nd October, 2000 and out of the wedlock, they have one daughter by name Kum. Anusha, who is now aged 22 years. The marriage between Chidanandachari and Smt Dhanalakshmi has been dissolved by decree of divorce granted on 1st April, 2021 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in MC No.1771 of 2021. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that she claim to be the legally wedded wife of Late Chidanandachari, without even mentioning the date and place of marriage. The plaint itself demonstrates that she is not at all the wife of late Chidanandachari and has absolutely nothing to do with the family of the defendant. The plaintiff is an outsider to the family of the defendant and she is not at all the wife of late V Chidanandachari. No marriage had taken place between them at any point of time as pleaded. Hence, the question of claiming to be the legally wedded wife of late V Chidanandachari without producing any documentary proof about the marriage, itself demonstrates that the plaintiff, in - 17 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 order to knock-off the valuable property which is the absolute property of the defendant, has, by misleading the Court, filed the above suit seeking partition through late V Chidanandachari after his death, though he himself had no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that after separating from his wife, Late Chidanandachari started to leave with the defendant who is none other than his mother and after construction of building on the property by the defendant from her own sources in the year 2019, late V Chidanandachari started to reside alone. It appears that the plaintiff, taking advantage of the loneliness of V Chidanandachari, managed to convince him by stating that she is an orphan and having taken divorce from her husband, she has no place to stay and entered the property and started to stay with him. The defendant on coming to know about the same, along with her other children, advised Chidanandachari not to entertain her and to send her out of the suit property, as staying in the same house with her would send wrong signal to the society and also would bring down the reputation of the family in the society. However, Chidanandachari did not heed to their advice. Admittedly, the suit property was purchased by the defendant through a registered sale deed on 19th January - 18 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 2019 out of her own funds, and the construction was put up during 2019 and allowed her son V Chidanandachari to stay in the said premises after he was separated from his wife only on humanitarian grounds and except that even late Chidanandachari, or for that matter, nobody had right, title or interest over the suit property, let alone the plaintiff who is a total stranger to the entire family of the defendant. On all these grounds, it was sought for dismissal of the suit. 17. The plaintiff has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the defendant. 18. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for my consideration: (1) Whether the trial Court has committed an error in observing at paragraph 10 of the order that, ”Admittedly, the suit schedule property stands jointly in the name of defendant and her son Chidanandachari, who is alleged husband of plaintiff? - 19 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 (2) Whether the order impugned passed by the trial Court is perverse, capricious and suffers from legal infirmities? Regarding Point No.(1): 19. I have examined the materials placed before me. The defendant has specifically denied the relationship between the plaintiff-Smt. Vedavathi and late V Chidanandachari. Defendant has specifically stated the appellant is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property and has gifted the suit property jointly in the names of V Shashidharachari and V Srinivasachari on 22nd December 2023 and got the katha transferred in their names, and they have been paying the property tax. Defendant has also produced following documents: a) Document No.11: registered partition deed dated 13th September 2011; b) Document No.12: registered sale deed dated 5th October 2012; c) Document No.13: registered sale deed dated 19th November 2012; d) Document No.14: registered sale dated 17th January 2019; e) Document No.18: registered sale deed dated 19th January 2019; f) Document No.20: khata and property tax payment receipt of the suit property; and - 20 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 Exhibit R1: registered gift deed dated 20th December 2023; Exhibit R5: decree dated 1st April 2021, passed in MC No.1771 of 2021 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. 20. Though the defendant has not admitted that the suit property stands jointly in the name of defendant and her son V Chidanandachari, the trial Court has observed in paragraph 10 of the impugned order that, “admittedly, the suit properties stand jointly in the name of defendant and her deceased son Chidanandachari, who is alleged husband of the plaintiff”, which is not correct and contrary to the pleadings. Additionally, the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that the suit property stands jointly in the name of defendant and her deceased son V Chidanandaachari, who is the alleged husband of the plaintiff. Therefore, the observations made by the trial Court at paragraph 10 of the order is apparently wrong, and contrary to the pleadings and documents. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative. - 21 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 Regarding Point No.(2): 21. A careful examination of the entire material on record reveals that the defendant in her written statement at paragraph 10 has specifically stated that after separating from his wife, V Chidanandachari started to live alone with defendant who is none other than the mother of Chidanandachari, and after completion of construction in the suit schedule property by the defendant in the year 2019, late Chidanandaachari started to reside there. Plaintiff taking advantage of the status of Chidanandaachari, managed to convince him that she is an orphan having taken divorce from her husband, she has no place to stay, thus, entered into the suit property and started to stay with him. The defendant on coming to know about the same, along with her other children, advised Chidanandachari not to entertain her and to send her out of the suit property, as staying in the same house with her sends wrong signal to the society, and will also bring down the reputation of the family. However, Chidanandachari did not heed to the advice of his elders which gave strength to the plaintiff to continue to stay with a man without marriage, which could not give her any legal right over a man, particularly, in respect of any of the property which he has left. It is evident from the pleadings of - 22 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 the defendant that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of the suit. 22. With regard to the relationship between the plaintiff and late V Chidanandachari is concerned, it is the specific case of the defendant that the plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of late V Chidanandachari. To substantiate the same, the defendant has produced copy of the decree of divorce between V Chidanandachari and Dhanalakshmi in MC No.1771 of 2021 passed by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on 1st April 2021, which reveals that the marriage of the petitioner solemnized on 22nd October 2000 with Smt. Dhanalakshmi at Y.H. Venkataramanppa Community Hall, KR Circle, Bengaluru as per Hindu rites and customs, is dissolved by granting decree of divorce. It is specifically pleaded in paragraph 3 of the rejoinder that the defendant, through her acquaintances, convinced the plaintiff to marry her son V Chidanandachari representing that he was yet to be married, and that the marriage of the plaintiff and V Chidanandachari held on 16th August 2015 at Sri Durgaparameshwari Temple, JP Nagar II Phase, Marathalli, Bengaluru in the presence of defendant and few of their relatives and friends of both the - 23 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 defendant and the plaintiff. The copy of the decree of divorce dated 1st April 2021 produced by the defendant reveals that the marriage of V Chidanandachari was solemnized with Dhanalakshmi on 22nd October 2000. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that during the subsistence of the first marriage with Dhanalakshmi, the present plaintiff married V Chidanandachari. However, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff did not know about the marriage of Dhanalakshmi with her deceased husband-V Chidanandachari. This argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff cannot be accepted at this stage as the same has to be adjudicated only after full-fledcged trial. Hence, there is no need to express any opinion in this regard. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property; the trial Court has granted the temporary injunction as sought for, which does not call for any interference by the Court. However, the observation made by the trial Court in paragraph 10 of the order that, “admittedly, the suit schedule property stands jointly in the name of defendant and deceased son Chidanandachari, who is the alleged husband of plaintiff", is not correct and not in accordance with pleadings and documents. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered partly in affirmative. - 24 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 23. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Appeals are allowed in part; ii) Order impugned dated 20th March 2025 passed on IA No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure in OS No.6670 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-25), to the extent of observation made at paragraph 10 of the order that “Admittedly, the suit schedule property stands jointly in the name of defendant and the deceased son, Chidanandachari, who is a alleged husband of the plaintiff” is set aside; iii) It is made clear that the observation made in this order is only to the extent of modification of paragraph 10 of impugned order passed by the trial Court, which will have no effect on the merits of the case; - 25 - MFA No.4053 of 2025 c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025 iv) The trial Court shall independently consider the pleadings, documents and evidence to be placed before it on merits and in accordance with law; v) This Order will not come in the way of the defendant taking appropriate legal steps to recover the possession in accordance with law; vi) Registry to send the copy of this judgment to the trial Court forthwith. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn