- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25945 MFA No. 5152 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5152 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI G VENKATESH REDDY S/O. LATE A. GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. R/AT NO.66, OPP. ANJANEYA TEMPLE, CHIKKA THOGUR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560100. 2. SRI. G. SAMPANGIRAMA REDDY, S/O. LATE A. GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.66, OPP. ANJANEYA TEMPLE, CHIKKA THOGUR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560100. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. C BABU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT B PADMAVATHI D/O. LATE A. BYYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25945 MFA No. 5152 of 2025 2. SRI. B. VENKATESHA REDDY S/O. LATE A. BYYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. 3. SMT. B. VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O. LATE A. BYYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 4. SRI. B. RAJASHEKARA REDDY S/O. LATE A. BYYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 5. SRI. B. SADANANDA REDDY S/O. LATE A. BYYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO. 23, APPAYANNA STREET, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 6. SRI. A. VENKATARAMANA REDDY S/O. LATE AJJA REDDY AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS R/AT, NO. 270, KSRTC LAYOUT 6TH 'B' MAIN, 5TH CROSS, J.P.NAGARA, 2ND PHASE BENGALURU-560078. 7. SMT. SARASWATHI, W/O. LATE A. NARAYANA REDDY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25945 MFA No. 5152 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 8. SMT. SAVITHA MANJUNATH D/O LATE A. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 9. SRI. AJAY KUMAR S/O LATE A. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 9 ARE R/AT NO. 843, 10TH MAIN, NEAR WATER TANK, BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560076. 10. SMT. ANITHA W/O. LATE A. VENKATESHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 11. SMT. RAKSHITHA VINITH D/O. LATE A. VENKATESHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 12. SRI. GOUTHAM V REDDY S/O. LATE A. VENKATESHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.10 TO 12 ARE R/AT NO. 50/2, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, NEXT TO TIRUMAL SYMPHONY - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25945 MFA No. 5152 of 2025 CHIKKA THOGUR BENGALURU-560100. 13. SMT. MUNIYAMMA D/O. LATE AJJA REDDY W/O NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE, TIRUMAL SYMPHONY, CHIKKA THOGUR, BENGALURU-560100. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CM NAGABHUSHAN., ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.17.06.2025 ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.334/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25945 MFA No. 5152 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT The Appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 17.06.2025 passed in O.S.No.334/2025 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru on I.A.No.1 filed under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC are before this Court in this appeal. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court that, during the lifetime of the grandfather of plaintiffs namely late Ajja Reddy being the Kartha of the Joint family had acquired the schedule property. It is their case that, the suit schedule property was originally belonging to their grandfather and accordingly his name was appearing in the concerned revenue records. It is the specific assertions of the plaintiffs that, themselves and defendants are in joint possession of these properties. The said Ajja Reddy died on 20.03.1980, leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants. It is alleged by the plaintiffs - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25945 MFA No. 5152 of 2025 that, these defendants taking undue advantage of the revenue records standing in their name created a false family tree without showing the names of the plaintiffs and based upon that, the defendants approached the revenue authorities and got transferred their names in the revenue records. The plaintiffs have got legitimate share in the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs have challenged the said mutation before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Division, Bengaluru which is pending for consideration. According to the plaintiffs, no partition is effected between the plaintiffs and defendants in respect of suit schedule property. Behind the back of the plaintiffs, defendants have obtained the revenue record and are making hectic attempts to alienate the property. 3. Before the learned trial Court the defendants appeared and defendant No.6 contested the suit by filing his written statement and adopted the same as objection to application. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25945 MFA No. 5152 of 2025 4. It is the specific contention of the Defendant No.6 that, the plaintiffs have no locus to file the suit seeking partition. It is stated that, way back in the year 1966 itself, the father of the plaintiffs had executed Release Deed on 04.06.1966 and the suit schedule properties are ceased to be the joint family properties. During the lifetime of Govinda Reddy, the plaintiffs' themselves have sold all the properties which were acquired under the Registered Released Deed dated 04.06.1966. The plaintiffs intentionally suppressing all these facts, have come up with a false suit. Even though they have suppressed the Release Deed dated 04.06.1966, the plaintiffs' father Govinda Reddy and plaintiffs have separated from the joint family in the year 1966 and therefore, they cannot be considered as a joint family with the defendants. Thus, it is contended by the defendants that, no prima facie case is made out by the plaintiffs to grant any interim order so also, balance of convenience never tilts in favour of the plaintiffs. If temporary - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25945 MFA No. 5152 of 2025 injunction is granted the defendants would be put to greater hardship and loss. 5. The learned trial Court on hearing the averments and on perusal of records, framed 3 points for consideration and answered all of them in the negative and ultimately dismissed I.A.No.1. Now the plaintiffs are before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for appellants submits that, still the suit schedule properties holds status of joint family property. Though, it is admitted with regard to the alienations made by the plaintiffs' father and themselves, there are no recital with regard to the Release deed alleged to have been executed on 04.06.1966. The only concern of the plaintiffs is that, though there is a Release Deed, still the suit schedule property holds status of joint family property and the defendants have got entered their names in the revenue records behind their back and they are trying to alienate the joint family property. The said - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25945 MFA No. 5152 of 2025 mutation was challenged by the plaintiffs before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Division and the same is pending. These plaintiffs are under apprehension of alienation of the suit schedule property by the defendants. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submits that, already there is a Release Deed in respect of the family property by the Govinda Reddy, father of the plaintiffs on 04.06.1996 and when there are several allegations made inter se between plaintiffs and defendants relating to the suit schedule properties, now these suit schedule properties mentioned in the plaint never formed the status of joint family property. They are independent properties of the defendants. Whether, the said properties were joint family properties and still hold the status of the joint family properties is the matter to be decided by the trial Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25945 MFA No. 5152 of 2025 8. At this stage, on reading the plaint averments as well as the documents produced, the fact is that, the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property and their name is appearing in the revenue records. According to the defendants, Release Deed dated 04.06.1966 is acted upon and based upon that, there are subsequent sale deeds. Even during the course of the order, the trial Court has observed in Paragraph No.9 that, the defendants have produced certain sale deeds, which discloses that, the plaintiffs were the vendors of the properties obtained under the Release Deed, their father have sold the same in favour of the purchasers. The recitals of the Sale deed dated 06.12.2004, 13.08.1993, 24.07.1977, 08.08.1977 and 01.10.2004 were executed by the plaintiffs themselves which reveal that, the said properties were obtained by them under the registered Release Deed and thereby recited that, they had absolute right to alienate the same in favour of the purchasers. The release deed is acted upon and there are several sale - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25945 MFA No. 5152 of 2025 deeds being effected. As per the observations of the trial Court, the plaintiffs have to establish their right. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the components of granting interim injunction, i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship, are not established by the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court by exercising its discretion, considering all the pleadings and documents produced, rightly rejected the plea of plaintiffs to grant injunction. Now the plaintiffs are apprehending that, the scheduled properties are going to be alienated by the defendants. But it is just an apprehension and there is no evidence placed on record that these properties are still holding the status of the joint family property of plaintiffs and the defendants. Therefore, as rightly held by the trial Court, if plaintiffs are granted with injunction, it is the defendants would be put the greater hardship and loss. At this stage, there is no prima facie case made out by the plaintiffs and the balance of convenience doubt tilt in favour of the plaintiffs. However, the lis is pending in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25945 MFA No. 5152 of 2025 O.S.No.334/2025. The plaintiffs have to prove their rights in the suit properties their by adducing evidence and their claims would be decided on merits. Therefore, if any alienations are there, they are subject to the outcome of the suit and also the application of doctrine of lis pendens. The plaintiffs have not made out any ground to allow this appeal and hence, this appeal fails. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. However, all the rights of the parties are kept open. No costs. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35