- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349 MFA No. 103208 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103208 OF 2025 (CPC-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VALI KOTRAPPA S/O LATE GURUPADAPPA, AGE: 77 YEARS, R/AT: 104, 15TH WARD, NEAR PETE BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE, SANAPURA, KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSAPETE TALUK, DIST: BALLARY- 583132. 2. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA D/O LATE VALI KOTRAMMA, & LATE BASAVANAPPA MUNDWADA, W/O SRI. VALI KOTRAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT: 104, 15TH WARD, NEAR PETE BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE, SANAPURA, KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSAPETE TALUK, DIST: BALLARY- 583132. 3. SRI. VALI GURU S/O VALI KOTRAPPA, AGE: 42 YEARS, R/AT: 104, 15TH WARD, NEAR PETE BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE, SANAPURA, KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSAPETE TALUK, DIST: BALLARY- 583132. 4. SMT. LALITHAMMA VALI W/O LATE VALI ADIVESHAPPA, AGE: 68 YEARS, R/AT: 10, 15TH WARD, SALAGUDI STREET, KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSAPETE TALUK, DIST: BALLARY-583132. 5. SMT. VALI SRIDEVI W/O LATE VALI RAJASHEKHAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, R/AT: 10TH, 15TH WARD, NEAR KALGUDIN ONI, MUDDAPURA, KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARY DISTRICT- 583132. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.11 12:11:30 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349 MFA No. 103208 of 2025 6. SMT. AISHWARYA D/O LATE VALI RAJASHEKHAR, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT: 10TH, 15TH WARD, NEAR KALGUDIN ONI, MUDDAPURA, KAMPLI HOBLI, TQ HOSAPETE, DIST. BALLARY - 583 132. 7. SRI. AMRUTH S/O LATE VALI RAJASHEKHAR, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT: 10TH, 15TH WARD, NEAR KALGUDIN ONI, MUDDAPURA, KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARY DISTRICT- 583 132. 8. SMT. VALI SHARADA W/O LATE VALI VIDYADHAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, R/AT: 104, 15TH WARD, NEAR PETE BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE, SANAPURA, KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSPAPETE TALUK, DIST: BELLARY- 583 132. 9. SRI. VALI KARTHIK S/O LATE VALI VIDYADHAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, R/AT: 104, 15TH WARD, NEAR PETE BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE, SANAPURA, KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSPAPETE TALUK, DIST: BELLARY- 583 132. 10. SRI. VALI SRIKANTH S/O LATE VALI VIDYADHAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, R/AT: 104, 15TH WARD, NEAR PETE BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE, SANAPURA, KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSPAPETE TALUK, DIST: BELLARY- 583 132. 11. SRI. PRAKASH S/O LATE VALI KOTRAMMA, & LATE BASAVANNAPPA MUNDAWADA, AGE: 68 YEARS, R/AT: MUNDWADA OIL MILLS, HOVINAHADAGALI, HOVINAHADAGALI TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DIST: 583132. 12. SRI. UMESH S/O LATE VALI KOTRAMMA & LATE BASAVANNAPPA MUNDAWADA, AGE: 66 YEARS, R/AT: MUNDWADA OIL MILLS, HOVINAHADAGALI, HOVINAHADAGALI TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DIST: 583132. 13. SRI. SHASIDHAR S/O LATE VALI KOTRAMMA, & LATE BASAVANAPPA MUNDWADA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349 MFA No. 103208 of 2025 AGE: 62 YEARS, R/AT: BASAVANAPPA MUNDAWADA SWAN MILLS, HOVINAHADAGALI, HOVIANAHADAGALI TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT: 583132. 14. SRI. SATISH S/O LATE VALI KOTRAMMA & LATE BASAVANAPPA MUNDAWADA, AGE: 60 YEARS, R/AT: M.B. KIRANI STORES HOVINAHADAGALI, HOVINAHADAGALI TALUK VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583132. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A. VEERANNA, ADV) AND: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. LATE KALAVATHI ARALI SINCE DECEASED REP BY HER LRS SRI SANNA GUNDAPPA S/O LATE VEERANNA ARALI AND LATE KALAVATHI ARALI AGE. 55 YEARS, WARD NO. 13, GADDER ONI, KARATAGI, GANGAVATHI TALUK KOPPAL DIST -583229. SMT. NANDA.A D/O LATE VEERANNA ARALI & LATE KALAVATHI ARALI, AGE: 55 YEARS, WARD NO. 13, GADDER ONI, KARATAGI, GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DIST -583229. SMT. SUDHA HADAGALI D/O LATE VEERANNA ARALI & LATE KALAVATHI ARALI, AGE: 53 YEARS, NO.30, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 1ST A-CROSS, BYRAVESHWARA NAGAR, SHANTHI DHAMA SCHOOL ROAD, SUNKADAKATTE, VISHWANEEDAM, BENGALURU-560091. SMT. MANGALA H.M S/O LATE VEERANNA ARALI & LATE KALAVATHI ARALI, AGE: 52 YEARS, NO.210, 31ST WARD, 1ST CROSS, NEHARU COLONY, 13 GADDER ONI, KARATAGI, KOPPAL. SRI. SHARANABASAVA ARALI S/O LATE VEERANNA ARALI & - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349 MFA No. 103208 of 2025 6. LATE KALAVATHI ARALI, AGE: 51 YEARS WARD NO.13, AGADDER ONI, KARATAGI TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583229. SRI. VIDYANANDA ARALI S/O LATE VEERANNA ARALI & LATE KALAVATHI ARALI, AGE: 41 YEARS, R/AT: 301, 4TH FLOOR, SAI APARTMENT, BEHIND NAMMURU THINDI HOTEL, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 R/W ORDER 104 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF O.S.NO.147/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE, AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 DATED 14.03.2025 IN O.S.NO.147/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE AND CONSEQUENTLY TO REJECT THE SAME. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the order on I.A.No.2 dated 14.03.2025 passed in O.S.No.147/2023 by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospete. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349 MFA No. 103208 of 2025 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The respondents filed a suit for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, respondents filed an application in I.A.No.2 seeking an order of temporary injunction under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C, restraining the appellants herein from alienating or encumbrance over the suit schedule properties to the third party till the disposal of the pending suit. In respect of the application, the respondents filed a sworn affidavit stating that they have filed a suit for partition and separate possession and the appellants are trying to alienate the suit schedule properties depriving the legitimate shares of the respondents. The said application was opposed by the appellants and prayed to reject the application in I.A.No.2. 3. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the application in I.A.No.2 vide order dated 14.03.2025. Hence, this appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349 MFA No. 103208 of 2025 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was a prior partition between Vali Kotrapa and Vali Adiveshappa, Vali Rajashekhar and Vali Vidyadhar in respect of the joint family properties in 1989 and the same was acted upon. Hence, he submits that the suit filed by the respondents itself is not maintainable. He submits that the parties are residing in and are in possession of their respective shares. Therefore, the Trial Court committed an error in allowing I.A. No.2. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for appellants. 7. There is no dispute that the respondents have filed a suit for partition and separate possession, contending that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the appellants and the respondents. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349 MFA No. 103208 of 2025 The appellants have taken a specific contention that there was a prior partition between the family members. Hence, the suit filed by the respondents is not maintainable. Insofar as the prior partition effected between the family members is concerned, the matter requires a full fledged trial. The respondents have filed the suit for partition and separate possession and have made allegation against the appellants that they are making attempts to alienate the suit schedule properties depriving the legitimate shares of the respondents. 8. It is the case of the respondents that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the respondents and the appellants; they are the members of a Hindu Undivided Family; no partition is effected between them; the appellants are trying to alienate the schedule properties. 9. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the appellants have no intention to alienate the suit schedule - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349 MFA No. 103208 of 2025 properties. If the appellants have no intention to alienate the suit schedule properties, it was not necessary for the appellants to file this appeal. 10. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are not alienating the suit schedule properties, nothing survives for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20