- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45984 WP No. 32417 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 32417 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. VARALAKSHMI W/O ANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS NO.168, DODDABYALAKERE VILLAGE HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH 560 089 2. KIRAN.G S/O GOVINDARAJU.M AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O NO.111, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE ABBIGERE, BENGALURU 560 090 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRATHAPA R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEVAKI D/O LATE MALLAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. MAHESH S/O LATE MALLAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/O DODDABYALAKERE VILLAGE HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH 560 089 Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45984 WP No. 32417 of 2025 3. JAYASHRI. H KANKANAWADI W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 4. SMITHA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 5. BHARATH S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 6. PURASKAR S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 6 ARE R/O NO.142, SATELLITE TOWN KENGERIUPANAGARA BENGALURU- 560 060 7. PADMAVATHI D/O LATE JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 8. MANJULA D/O LATE JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 9. RAMAMANI D/O LATE JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 10. PREM KUMAR S/O LATE JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 11. RAJIV KUMAR S/O LATE JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45984 WP No. 32417 of 2025 12. PRASAD KUMAR S/O LATE JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 13. ANNAPPA S/O LATE MUNIDALAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 14. SUNANDAMMA W/O LATE DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS DEFENDANTS NO.7 TO 14 ARE R/O DODDA BYALAKERE VILLAGE HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH 560 089 15. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT MO.161, GEDDALAHALLI RMV 2ND STAGE, SANJAY NAGAR BENGALURU 560 094 16. SIDDAPPA S/O LATE CHOWDAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.225, JAYANAGAR NELAMANGALA POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL 562 123 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO BY WAY OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17-10-2025 PASSED IN OS NO.1968/2025, ON I.A.NO.1 TO 3, BY THE HONBLE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE., AND ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45984 WP No. 32417 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents-defendants, as before the trial Court, respondents-defendants have not been served. 3. Petitioners are none other than the plaintiffs before the trial Court. They filed suit against the defendants seeking relief of declaration, to declare the unregistered partition deed dated 04.07.2014 entered between the deceased-husband of defendant No.3 and defendant Nos.15 and 16, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs insofar as suit schedule property is concerned and consequently an order of permanent injunction. 4. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs have filed two applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. First application is filed for an order restraining defendant Nos.3, 15 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45984 WP No. 32417 of 2025 and 16 from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of third party. Second application is filed for an order restraining defendant Nos.3, 15 and 16 from changing the nature of suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. 5. On hearing the plaintiffs on the said applications for grant of an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction, the trial Court felt it is necessary to issue notice to the defendants before passing interim order and accordingly, ordered for issuance of emergent notice to defendant Nos.3, 15 and 16 and suit summons to other defendants. 6. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court in non-passing of an order on the application for grant of an ad-interim temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.3, 15 and 16 from alienating or changing the nature of the suit schedule property. 7. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, defendant Nos.15 and 16 in collusion with the deceased-husband of defendant No.3 fraudulently executed an unregistered partition deed dated 04.07.2014, purporting to represent themselves as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45984 WP No. 32417 of 2025 members of the family of late Munidalappa, and proceeded to divide the suit property amongst themselves without knowledge and consent of other members of the family. It is also stated that the revenue records have been fraudulently mutated in the name of deceased-husband of defendant No.3 and subsequently the same is continued to stand in the name of defendant No.3. It is also stated that defendant Nos.15 and 16 are strangers to the family. They have no manner of right, title or interest in the family property and their inclusion in the alleged unregistered partition deed, clearly demonstrate the collusiveness and malafide intention of the deceased-husband of defendant No.3. 8. It is further stated that the unregistered partition deed has been fraudulently executed on 04.07.2014, which is an invalid document, and void ab-initio and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. It is further stated that defendant Nos.3, 15 and 16 are now making hectic attempts to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third party on the strength of the unregistered partition deed and the revenue entries which are changed in their names. They are also trying - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45984 WP No. 32417 of 2025 to alienate and change the nature of the suit schedule property. By such act of the defendants, irreparable injury and hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs, as defendant Nos.15 and 16 the are not family members and they are strangers. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs has filed several records and RTCs to show that the property devolved in the name of one Sri.Munidalappa prior to the execution of this unregistered partition deed. The family members of the plaintiffs and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which is an agricultural property till the unregistered partition deed is surfaced at the behest of defendant Nos.3, 15 and 16. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs sought for an ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property till the next date of hearing prior to issuance of notice to the defendants. 10. In view of the urgency, the delay if caused in issuance of notice would cause hardship or damage to the property and threat of alienation by defendant Nos.3, 15 and 16. The trial Court instead of considering all these aspects has - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45984 WP No. 32417 of 2025 passed an order of issuance of notice, aggrieved by which, the petitioners-plaintiffs are before this Court. 11. I have gone through the records, the RTCs and the contentions raised by the plaintiffs with regard to the fabricated and concocted document i.e., unregistered partition deed and the injunction application and the averments therein seeking an order from the trial Court as well as this Court restraining defendant Nos.3, 15 and 16 from alienating the suit schedule property till further orders are passed on the application, which has not been considered and granted by the trial Court. The plaintiffs have also produced certain photographs at Annexure- K showing the suit schedule property being agricultural property wherein some activities are going on. 12. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate that ad-interim order of temporary injunction requires to be granted to the extent of non-alienation of the suit schedule property by defendant Nos.3, 15 and 16 till next date of hearing. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45984 WP No. 32417 of 2025 13. It is the obligation of the trial Court to deal with the application on the merits of the case by considering the documents. If the averments and the pleadings so made by the plaintiffs prima facie satisfies that the case is made out by the plaintiffs and the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the plaintiffs and the hardship would be caused, an ad-interim order of temporary injunction requires to be granted to protect the property from damage, alienation or creation of a third party interest in the property till suit is decided or till the application is decided on appearance of the defendants before the trial Court, which has not been done. Merely notice is ordered to the defendants. It is also to be seen that by non- passing such an order, if defendant Nos.3, 15 and 16 alienate and create third party interest, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice it would be appropriate to pass an ad-interim order till the appearance of the defendants and the application could be decided after the objections are filed on merits of the application by either continuing with the order or vacating the order. 14. In view of the above, I pass the following:- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45984 WP No. 32417 of 2025 ORDER. i). This petition is allowed; ii). An ad-interim order of temporary injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs on IA No.1 restraining defendant Nos.3, 15 and 16 from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of third party till the application is decided upon appearance of the defendants before the trial Court. iii). Insofar as another application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC a similar order requires to be passed. Therefore, defendant Nos.3, 15 and 16 are restrained from changing the nature of the suit schedule properly till appearance of the defendants and disposal of the IA. iv). This order shall continue till next date of hearing before the trial Court. v). The defendants are at liberty to file their objections and argue the matter for disposal of the application in IA Nos.1 and 2. vi). The trial Court is at liberty to deal with the application upon appearance of the defendants in accordance with law. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45984 WP No. 32417 of 2025 vii). It is made clear that trial Court is at liberty to dispose of the application without being influenced by the order passed by this Court. viii). The opinion and observations made herein are solely for the purpose of grant of an ad-interim order of temporary injunction. ix). Petitioner to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25