- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28601 MFA No. 4087 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4087 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHINNAIAH S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 2. SMT. VENKATANARASAMMA W/O CHINNAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. SRI. MURALI S/O CHINNAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 4. SRI. RAJU S/O CHINNAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 5. SRI. MAHESHA S/O CHINNAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT HUNEGAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH K, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28601 MFA No. 4087 of 2025 AND: 1. SRI. MANJUNATHA C S/O CHINNAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 2. SMT. SAROJA W/O CHINNAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.24, 2ND MAIN ROAD NEAR KRISHNA BAKERY KAVERI NAGAR, MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU-560 048 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.07.04.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.692/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA, ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28601 MFA No. 4087 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants have filed this appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, "CPC") challenging the order dated 07.04.2025 passed in O.S.No.692/2024 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura. The plaintiffs in the said suit filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents, henchmen or anybody claiming through them from creating any encumbrance over any portion of the suit schedule properties in any manner pending disposal of the suit. The learned trial Court, on hearing both sides, has allowed I.A.No. 1 and granted temporary injunction as prayed for. The said order on I.A.No. 1 is impugned in this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that, though the marriage between respondent No. 2 and appellant No. 1 is admitted, the appellants' dispute the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28601 MFA No. 4087 of 2025 relationship of respondent No. 1 with appellant No. 1 as his son. He submits that, on the date of marriage itself in the evening, appellant No. 1 came to know that respondent No. 2 was pregnant and therefore there was no consummation of marriage. He further submits that, respondent No. 2, as a matter of right, is not entitled for a share in the property of the appellants. 3. He further submits that, the interim order so passed by the trial Court, restraining the appellants' from creating any encumbrance over any portion of the scheduled property, has affected the rights of the respondents, as the name of defendant No.1 is mentioned in the concerned revenue records. He further submits that, for development of the scheduled properties, it necessitated appellant No.1 to raise the loan. Because of this temporary injunction order, he is not getting the required loan. He submits that, appellants undertake not to alienate the property till disposal of the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28601 MFA No. 4087 of 2025 4. As against this submission, Mr. Syed Akbar Pasha, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the marriage between respondent No. 2 and appellant No. 1 was performed on 18.06.1989 in the presence of the elderly members and family relations. Respondent No. 1 was born on 31.05.1990. He submits that, though there is an allegation about the paternity of respondent No. 1 with appellant No. 1, as the son is born within 280 days, therefore, it can be construed that, this respondent No. 1 is the son of appellant No. 1. According to him, as there is refusal on the part of the appellants, to effective the partition, the respondents were constrained to file the suit. There was the hectic attempt of creating charge over the property in question, therefore, the respondents filed interim application in the suit and rightly the learned trial Court has granted the same. He submits that, there is no merit in this appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28601 MFA No. 4087 of 2025 5. The only limited submission of the counsel for the appellants/defendants is that, loan is already raised and he is paying the installments. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that, when the respondents demanded to effect a partition, this appellant No. 1 intelligently created the Gift Deeds dated 18.06.2024 and 04.10.2024. But, the records show that, the suit of the respondents was filed on 25.11.2024 i.e., subsequent to the said Gift Deeds dated supra. The apprehension of the appellants is that, because of the injunction order, there is no possibility of raising any further loans from the banks for the purpose of development of the land. In view of the rival submissions, if the appellants are permitted to raise a loan for the purpose of development of the land at his risk and subject to the result of the suit, it would meet the ends of justice. 7. However this raising of loan will not affect the rights of the respondents in any manner in claiming their - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28601 MFA No. 4087 of 2025 alleged legitimate share in the properties. With this modification this appeal is to be disposed of. In this appeal, the very relationship is disputed as that of a father and son in between respondent No. 1 and appellant No. 1, it requires a full-fledged trial. 8. Appellants undertake that they are not going to alienate the property. This submission is placed on record. However, to protect the interests of both parties, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) The appeal is disposed of. (ii) The appellants herein are permitted to raise further loan for the development of the land, and this is subject to result of the suit and at the risk of the appellants. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28601 MFA No. 4087 of 2025 (iii) This raising of a loan will not affect the alleged rights of the plaintiffs in claiming their shares in the schedule property. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20