- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29006 WP No. 30702 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 30702 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF LATE M.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUTHUKADAHALLI VILLAGE, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK- 561 211. 2. SRI. B.N.JAGANNATHA SON OF LATE M.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MUTHUKADAHALLI VILLAGE, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561 211. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. BHARATHI.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. N.CHAITHANYA, SON OF LATE M.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. SRI. BADRINARAYAN SON OF LATE M.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MUTHUKADAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29006 WP No. 30702 of 2024 THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561 211. 3. SMT. B.R.RATHNA DAUGHTER OF B.M.RAMANNA, WIFE OF NARAYANAMURTHY, AGED OF 50 YEARS, 4. SRI. HRISHIKESH SON OF NARAYANAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT OF 28 YEARS, 5. SRI. JASHWANATHA KUMAR SON OF NARAYANAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT OF 20 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.128/140, 2ND MAIN 4TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018. 6. SRI. R.RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.33, OPP.SRI.RAMA TEMPLE, BYATANARAYANPURA, BENGALURU, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 092. 7. MR. SYED KAZIM ABBAS SON OF M.SUJATH ALI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 8. MR. SYED AKRAM ABBAS SON OF M.SUJATH ALI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ALLIPUR VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29006 WP No. 30702 of 2024 THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561 211. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDAN.K. ADVOCATE FOR R6; NOTICE TO R1TO5-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:29.07.2025; NOTICE TO R7 & 8-HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Smt.Bharathi.M., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Chandan.K., counsel for respondent No.6 have appeared in person. 2. Though the matter is listed today for orders, with the consent of counsel for the respective parties it is heard. 3. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gauribidanur in Misc. Appeal No.17/2024 vide Annexure-A and order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur in O.S.No.347/2018, on interim application filed by the plaintiffs - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29006 WP No. 30702 of 2024 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 R/w. Section 151 of CPC vide Annexure-B. 4. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 5. The short facts are these: The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession for a declaration that they are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties and also prayed that the sale deed dated 01.10.2005 executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favor of defendant No.4 in respect of suit schedule item No.2 is not binding on their legitimate share and for division and separate possession by metes and bounds. After the issuance of suit summons, defendant No.4 filed a detailed written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w. Section 151 of CPC and prayed for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendant No.4 not to alter and not to change the nature of item No.2 of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. Defendant No.4 filed statement of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29006 WP No. 30702 of 2024 objections. The Trial Court vide order dated 19.06.2024 dismissed the application. As against the said order, an appeal was filed in Misc. Appeal No.17/2024. The Appellate Court vide order dated 30.09.2024, confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the Miscellaneous Appeal. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 7. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to dismissal of temporary injunction application. As could be seen from the lis between the parties, the suit is one for partition. The application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-E. Sri.B.N.Jagannatha - plaintiff No.3 has sworn to the declaration of facts stating that the suit schedule item No.2 is the ancestral and joint family property acquired by his grandfather and the sale made in favor of defendant No.4 is not binding on them. He has also stated that there is no independent right to defendants 1 to 3 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29006 WP No. 30702 of 2024 to execute a sale deed in favor of defendant No.4. He has further stated that defendant No.4 trying to interfere with their peaceful possession of the property and made hectic efforts to change and alter the nature of the property. Defendant No.4 filed statement of objections to the application. The petitioners grievance is about item No.2 of the suit schedule property. In the plaint, the plaintiffs averred that defendant No.1 along with defendants 2 and 3 have executed a registered sale deed in favor of defendant No.4 on 01.10.2005. The suit is filed in 2018 and one of the prayer is to declare the sale deed dated 01.10.2005 as not binding on the plaintiffs' share. Taking note of the plaint averments, it appears that defendant No.4 is a pre-suit purchaser. The petitioners apprehension is that defendant No.4 may alienate and change the nature of the property. The law is well settled that alienation made during the pendency of the proceedings is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Trial Court extenso referred to the material on record and the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and rightly rejected the application. The Appellate Court has examined the evidence - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29006 WP No. 30702 of 2024 on record and re-appraised it. I am satisfied that it has been appreciated from the correct perspective. Further the findings by the Court of facts are neither vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence nor there is an erroneous approach to the matter. I do not find any error in the finding of facts. Furthermore, both the Courts concurrently arrived at a finding of fact based on the material evidence on record. Needless to say, the grant of interim relief of temporary injunction is discretionary in nature. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court exercised the discretionary powers from the right perspective. Under such circumstances, the High Court exercising power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot reverse the concurrent findings under ordinary circumstances. Hence, I decline to interfere with the orders. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9