- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34700 MFA No. 4106 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4106 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: B.N. PRAKASH S/O LATE B.V. NARAYAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT BELLANDUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VASANTH MADHAVA S, ADVOCATE) AND: B.N. JAGADEESH S/O LATE B. V. NARAYAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT BELLANDUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.V.RAVIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS. NO. 276/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34700 MFA No. 4106 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT The plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC in OS.No.276/2024 by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bengaluru, thereby, the application praying to restrain the defendant from changing the nature of the suit schedule A and B properties is dismissed. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds in the suit schedule A, B and C properties on the basis that there was partition in the joint family on 28.03.2001 and in the said partition, the suit schedule A, B and C properties were jointly allotted to the plaintiff and defendant as cited in schedule ‘H’ property. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition claiming equal share in the said properties, which were schedule ‘H’ properties in the said partition deed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34700 MFA No. 4106 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that, as per this partition deed dated 28.03.2001, the suit schedule A, B and C properties in schedule ‘H’ item Nos.1, 2 and 3 properties were given jointly in the name of plaintiff and defendant and it is considered by the trial Court and negatived the contention of the defendant that the schedule ‘H’ properties are given exclusively to the defendant. When this being the finding given on the prima facie material, but declined to grant an order of temporary injunction. Further submitted that the application filed for temporary injunction is only to the limited extent restraining the defendant from changing the nature of suit schedule properties and submitted that whatever the change in nature of suit schedule A, B and C properties that would be subject to result of the suit and the defendant cannot claim equity and only for this purpose, the application is filed. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34700 MFA No. 4106 of 2025 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that under the said partition deed dated 28.03.2001 the plaintiff has been given separate share as per schedule ‘D’. Therefore, when the plaintiff has been given share in schedule ‘D’ in the partition deed, therefore, once again the plaintiff is not entitled to claim share in schedule ‘H’ properties as per the partition deed. Further submitted that as on 28.03.2001 the defendant was not having children, therefore, the property in schedule ‘H’ in the partition deed was given in the joint name of plaintiff and defendant with the forethought and with the vision that in case of death of plaintiff and defendant, the property would be reverted back to the family of late V.Narayanareddy through the grandchildren of V.Narayanareddy. Therefore, the plaintiff is given separate share as per schedule ‘D’ in the partition deed. Therefore, once again, he cannot claim partition in schedule ‘H’ property, which is subject matter of schedule properties in the suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34700 MFA No. 4106 of 2025 5. Heard the argument from the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material available at this stage in the appeal. 6. Upon considering the rival submissions and materials produced at this stage, the points that arise for consideration are as under: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the trial Court so as to grant order of temporary injunction? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out case of balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the trial Court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? (iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiff would suffer any irreparable loss or injury? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34700 MFA No. 4106 of 2025 7. The relationship between the plaintiff and defendant and the partition effected in the joint family of plaintiff and defendant on 28.03.2001 is not in dispute. Also the suit schedule A, B and C properties (in schedule ‘H’ item Nos.1, 2 and 3 properties) as per the partition deed dated 28.03.2001 is also not in dispute. As per the partition deed dated 28.03.2001 the plaintiff was given schedule ‘D’ property exclusively. At the time of partition deed dated 28.03.2001, the defendant was not having children, therefore, the schedule ‘D’ property was given jointly to the plaintiff and defendant. When three children are given exclusive share and the defendant is given jointly with the plaintiff, why such arrangement is made has to be appreciated and considered during the full- fledged trial, but the fact remains that in the partition deed dated 28.03.2001 the suit schedule item properties are allotted jointly to the plaintiff and defendant. Though, there may be clause in the partition deed that the defendant and Govardhan were not having children, then - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34700 MFA No. 4106 of 2025 the properties allotted to them would be reverted back to the family of V.Narayanareddy through grandchildren, but that could have been done even without inclusion of plaintiff while jointly allotting the share with the defendant. 8. Therefore, the fact remains that as per the partition deed as above stated, the schedule properties are given jointly to the plaintiff and defendant. This prima facie shows that the plaintiff is entitled for share. What was the intention by putting such clause in the partition deed is to be gathered during the course of trial, but not at this stage. As discussed above, schedule properties are given jointly in the name of plaintiff and defendant. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has conceded that the defendant may develop/alter the suit schedule properties, but that could be made subject to result of the suit and in case, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed, then the defendant cannot claim equity. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34700 MFA No. 4106 of 2025 9. Considering the facts and materials at this stage as discussed above, since the schedule properties were given jointly in the name of plaintiff and defendant and now the plaintiff is confining the application to the extent that whatever the nature and alteration and development of the suit properties by the defendant that would be subject to result of the suit and defendant cannot claim equity. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the limited relief as discussed above. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.i, ii and iii partly in affirmative by holding that the defendant may develop/change/alter the suit schedule properties, but that would be subject to result of the suit. The defendant is at liberty to give the premises on rent basis and also entitled to receive the rent amount. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. 10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34700 MFA No. 4106 of 2025 ii. The order dated 18.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC in OS.No.276/2024 by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bengaluru, is hereby modified by holding that the defendant may develop/alter/change the suit properties and also to receive rent, if accrued on it, if the premises is given on rent basis, but that would be subject to result of the suit and the defendant cannot claim equity in case the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. iii. With these observations, the suit is disposed of. Whatever observation made above are only for consideration of the appeal. The trial Court shall independently consider the suit and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67