- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31382 MFA No. 3569 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3569 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1 MUTTHAIAH @ MUTTHURAJ AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, SON OF LATE MUTTHAIH, RESIDING AT AJJANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADABALA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 2 NAGARAJAU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SON OF LATE BYRAIAH @ BYRAPPA, 3 MAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SON OF LATE BYRAIAH @ BYRAPPA, 4 B MURTHY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, SON OF LATE BYRAIAH @ BYRAPPA, 5 RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, SON OF LATE BYRAIAH @ BYRAPPA, PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.80, MYSORE ROAD, METRO LAYOUT, NAYANDAHALLI BENGALURU - 560039. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31382 MFA No. 3569 of 2024 6 BYRAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE MALLEMARIAH @ MARE GOWDA 7 MARAKKA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE MALLEMARIAH @ MARE GOWDA 8 MUTTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE MALLEMARIAH @ MARE GOWDA 9 NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE BYRAPPA 10 LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE BYRAPPA 11 JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE BYRAPPA PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANT NO.7 TO 12 ARE R/AT MATTHA VILLAGE, MADABALA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562120 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHIVAREDDY K N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 G PARVATHI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE KENCHE GOWDA. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31382 MFA No. 3569 of 2024 2 K REKHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE KENCHE GOWDA, 3 K JAMUNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE KENCHE GOWDA, 4 HOMBALAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, SON OF LATE MUTTHAIAH 5 NARAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, SON OF LATE MUTTHAIAH 6 SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, SON OF LATE MUTTHAIAH 7 MUTTHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SON OF LATE EARAPPA 8 KENCHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SON OF LATE EARAPPA 9 PUTTASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SON OF LATE EARAPPA 10 PUTTA CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SON OF LATE EARAPPA. 11 SHIVAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE BYRAPPA, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31382 MFA No. 3569 of 2024 DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 11 ARE R/AT ANEKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE, MANCHANABELE, MADABALA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562120 12 MARANNA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, SON OF LATE MALLEMARIAH @ MARE GOWDA, 13 BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, SON OF LATE MALLEMARIAH @ MARE GOWDA, 14 LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, SON LATE MALLEMARIA @ MARE GOWDA, 15 MUTTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SON OF LATE BYRAPPA, 16 BYRE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SON OF LATE BYRAPPA, 17 GOPAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SON OF LATE BYRAPPA, 18 NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SON OF LATE BYRAPPA, DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS NO.12 TO 18 ARE R/AT MATTHA VILLAGE, MADABALA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANGARA DISTRICT – 562120 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31382 MFA No. 3569 of 2024 19 LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O LATE MUTTHAIAH, 20 NAGARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE MUTTHAIAH, 21 MANGALA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE MUTTHAIAH, RESIDING 22 MUTTHURAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, SON OF LATE MUTTHAIAH, 23 LALITHAMMA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE MUTTHAIAH, DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS NO.19 TO 23 ARE R/AT BYALALU VILLAGE, CHUNCHANAKUPPE POST, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 562130 24 NEELAKANTA R GOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, SON OF LATE M B RAJU, R/AT NO.574, 8TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, M C LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560040 25 RAMESH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SON OF LATE JAYAMMA AND JALLAPPA, 26 PRABHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31382 MFA No. 3569 of 2024 SON OF LATE JAYAMMA AND JALLAPPA, 27 RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SON OF LATE CHIKKA BYRAPPA, 28 SARASWATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE MARAPPA, 29 B KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, SON OF LATE CHIKKA BYRAPPA 30 RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SON OF HOTTAPPA, 31 MUTTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE NARAYANAPPA 32 GEETHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE NARAYANAPPA 33 LATHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE NARAYANAPPA 34 MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS SON OF LATE NARAYANAPPA DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS NO.25 TO 34 ARE R/AT BYALALU VILLAGE, CHUNCHANAKUPPE POST, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 562130 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31382 MFA No. 3569 of 2024 35 PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE MUTTHAPPA, 36 CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SON OF LATE MUDDANNA DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS NO.35 AND 36 ARE R/AT ANCHEPALYA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 560060 37 KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, SON OF LATE CHIKKANNA, R/AT NO.548, 4TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560086 …RESPONDENTS (V/O DT.13.12.2024, NOTICE TO R1 TO R36 IS D/W; R37 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(R) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.8 IN O.S.NO.588/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31382 MFA No. 3569 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs/appellants questioning the order passed on I.A.No.8 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition claiming share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and also for declaration to declare that the registered sale deeds dated 23.07.2015 (item Nos.1 & 3), 18.09.2019 (item No.7), 24.07.1995 and 24.04.2014 (item No.9) and registered confirmation deed dated 05.04.2021 (item No.9) pertaining to the suit schedule properties are not binding on the plaintiffs and other consequential reliefs. 3. I.A.No.8 is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining defendant No.37 from alienating item No.9 of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court has dismissed the said application on the reason that defendant No.37 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31382 MFA No. 3569 of 2024 has purchased one of the suit item through registered sale deed dated 24.04.2014 and the suit is filed in the year 2021 questioning the said sale deed. Therefore, the Trial Court has dismissed the application. 4. The plaintiffs have filed an application for temporary injunction only against defendant No.37 on item No.9 of the suit schedule properties, but has not asked the relief against other defendants and other suit properties. Admittedly, in the present case, defendant No.37 had purchased the item No.9 of the suit properties through a registered sale deed dated 24.04.2014 and the suit is filed in the year 2021. The plaintiffs have asked the relief of declaration to declare this sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs prove their case, then their right will be crystalised in this suit and they get their shares in the suit. Since the sale transaction was taken place much before registration of suit, there is no need to grant any order of temporary injunction restraining - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31382 MFA No. 3569 of 2024 defendant No.37 from making alienation of item No.9 of the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court is correct in its order. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 5. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the above said order while considering the suit on its merits. 6. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36