- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4209 OF 2025 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4186 OF 2025 IN MFA No.4209/2025 BETWEEN: SRI. N. GANGESH S/O LATE SRI. K. NANJUNDAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1. SMT. G. GAYATHRI, W/O LATE N. GANGESH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2. MR G. KARTHIK, S/O LATE N. GANGESH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 3. MR G. GANESH, S/O LATE N. GANGESH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 4. SMT. G. ANUSHA, D/O LATE N. GANGESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT DODDAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, (ASHWATHAKATTE ROAD), AMRUTHHALLI, SAHAKARA NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 092 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. T.SURYANARAYAN, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI. PRASHANTH MURTHY S. G., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT. CHINNAMMA D/O LATE SRI. NAJNJUNDAPPA, W/O THAYAPPA SINCE DECEASED NOW RESPONDENT REPRESENTED BY HER LRS NO MR. JAYASHANKAR.T, S/O SRI. THAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2. SRI. THAYAPPA, S/O SRI. SUBBARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 176, ASWATHA KATTE ROAD, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, SAHAKARNAGAR POST, BENGALURU. 3. SRI.G.K. KRISHNAPPA SON OF LATE SRI. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAMMATEMPLE ROAD, (ASHWATHKATTE ROAD), AMRUTHHALLI, SAHAKARA NAGAR POST, BENGALURU -560 092 4. SMT. KAMAKSHAMMA AT KAMAKKA, W/O LATE SRI.K. NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1764, 18TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU. 5. SMT. DODD KRISHNAMMA @ KRISHNAVENI D/O LATE SRI. GANGAPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 W/O SRI. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1764, 18TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU. 6. CHIKK KRISHNAMMA @KRISHNAMMA, D/O LATE SRI. GANGAPPA, W/O SRI.D.M. GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO. 10, 1ST CROSS, MUNIKARIYAPPA COMPOUND, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALULRU. 7. SMT. NALINI LAKSHMIPATHY, W/O K. LAKSHMIPATHY, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, 8. SRI.K. LAKSHMIPATHY S/O LATE KANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 10 A SECTOR, III CROSS, AMRUTHA NAGAR MAIN RAOD, AMRITHANAGAR, BENGALURU. 9. DR.J. MOHAN, S/O K.P. JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO. 60, 13TH CROSS, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BENGALURU. 10. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA, W/O G.K. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 11. SRI.K. GANGADHAR S/O G.K. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 12. SMT. K. GAYATHRI, D/O G.K., KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 13. SRI.K. GAJENDRA S/O G.K. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESPONDNAT NO.10 TO 13 ARE R/AT ASHWATHAAKATTE ROAD, AMRUTHAHALLI, SAHAKARA NAGAR POST, BENGALURU. 14. MASTER G. KARTHIK, S/O N. GANGESH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 15. MASTER G. GANGESH, S/O N. GANGESH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT ASHWATHAAKATTE ROAD, AMRUTHAHALLI, SAHAKARA NAGAR POST, BENGALURU. 16. SRI. M. VENKATESH S/O B. MARKANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 17. SMT. V. UMA S/O SRI. M. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESPONDNET NO.16 AND 17 ARE R/AT NO. 51, 13TH MAIN , - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 SREENIVASANAGAR, BENGALURU. 18. SRI.M. SURESH, S/O SRI. SUBRAMANYA.M. AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO. 685, 13TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, SREENIVASANAGAR, BENGALURU. 19. SRI. MAHESH, S/O SI. H.N. SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 20. SMT. D.V. ARCHANA, W/O SRI. MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESPONDENTS 19 AND 20 R/AT NO. 209, 3E CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU, AND ALSO AT FLAT NO. 108, 3RD FLOOR, BALAJI NEST, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU. 21. SMT. K. JEYAPRIYA, W/O SRI.D. SRIRAGHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 22. SRI.D. SRIRAGHAVAN, S/O SRI. DURAISWAMI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENTS R/AT NO. G-301, ABODH VALMARK APARTMENT - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 141-35-13, VEERANNAPALYA RAOD, GOVINDA ARABIC COLLEGE POST, NAGAVARA, BENGALURU. AND ALSO AT FLAT NO. 706, SECOND FLOOR, BALAJI MOONARC, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 23. SRI. NITIN BHARATRAO GORDE, S/O MR. BHARATH VITTHAL GORDE, R/AT PRATISHA COTTAGE, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. TO CORPORATION BANK, KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU AND ALSO AT FLAT NO. 406, SECOND FLOOR, BALAJI LEGEND, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 24. SMT. CHITRALEKHA.G. W/O SRI. VIVEK.C.S. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,. 25. SRI. VIVEK C.S. S/O LATE SHIVANNA C.S. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENTS 24 AND 25 R/AT NO. 365, C.B. MALLAPPA ROAD, KURUBARASHRENI SCHOOL STREET, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR. AND ALSO FLAT NO. 302, GROUND FLOOR, BALAJI LEGEND, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 26. SRI. SOORAJ J. PRABHU S/O LATE JAYANTH PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT C-301, NANDISH PARK APARTMENT, 19TH CROSS, BANGAPPA GARDEN, MUTHYALANAGAR, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU. AND ALSO AT FLAT NO.806, SECOND FLOOR, BALAJI MOONARC, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 27. SMT. SHILPA.M. SAGARI, W/O MR. MRUTHYUNJAYA S. SAGARI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 28. SRI. MRUTHYUNJAYA S. SAGARI S/O SRI. SHRISHAIL M. SAGARI, ABED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDNETS ARE 27 AND 28 R/AT SURYA KIRAN APARTMENT GROUND FLOOR, NO. 4381, A BLOCK, 4TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR, BENGALURU. AND ALSO AT FLAT NO.402, GROUND FLOOR, BALAJI LEGEND, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 29. SMT. GADDI VANDI, W/O SRI. C. SUNIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 30. SRI.C. SUNIL KUMAR S/O C. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BOTH RESPOPNDNETS 29 AND 30 R/AT NO. 48,3RD MAIN, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU. ALSO AT FLAT NO. 403, 1 FLOOR, BALAJI LEGEND, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 31. SRI.A.M. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, S/O A.S. MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO. C-102/15, 3RD MAIN, AMARJYOTHI NAGAR LAYOUT, SANJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY * SRI. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; V/O DATED 23.07.2025, NOTICE TO R3 TO R31 IS D/W) THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.22 IN OS.NO. 2184/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-13), ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.22 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. * Deleted vide chamber order dated 10.09.2025 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 IN MFA NO.4186/2025 BETWEEN: SRI. G. K. KRISHNAPPA SON OF LATE SRI.GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT DODDAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, ASHWATHKATTE ROAD, AMRUTHAHALLI, SAHAKARA NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 092 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANDEEP LAHIRI., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. CHINNAMMA D/O LATE SRI. NAJNJUNDAPPA, W/O THAYAPPA SINCE DECEASED NOW RESPONDENT REPRESENTED BY HER LRS 1. MR. JAYASHANKAR.T. S/O SRI. THAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 2. SRI. THAYAPPA, S/O SRI. SUBBARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT NO. 176, ASWATHA KATTE ROAD, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, SAHAKARNAGAR POST, BENGALURU. 3. SMT. KAMAKSHAMMA @ KAMAKKA, W/O LATE SRI.K. NANJUNDAPPA - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1764, 18TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU. SRI. N. GANGESH S/O LATE SRI. K. NANJUNDAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 4. SMT. G. GAYATHRI, W/O LATE N. GANGESH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 5. MR G. KARTHIK, S/O LATE N. GANGESH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 6. MR G. GANESH, S/O LATE N. GANGESH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 7. SMT. G. ANUSHA, D/O LATE N. GANGESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT DODDAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, (ASHWATHAKATTE ROAD), AMRUTHHALLI, SAHAKARA NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 092 8. SMT. DODD KRISHNAMMA @ KRISHNAVENI D/O LATE SRI. GANGAPPA, W/O SRI. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1764, 18TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 9. CHIKK KRISHNAMMA @ KRISHNAMMA, D/O LATE SRI. GANGAPPA, W/O SRI.D.M. GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO. 10, 1ST CROSS, MUNIKARIYAPPA COMPOUND, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALULRU. 10. SMT. NALINI LAKSHMIPATHY, W/O K. LAKSHMIPATHY, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, 11. SRI.K. LAKSHMIPATHY S/O LATE KANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS. BOTH RESPONDENTS ARE R/AT NO. 10 A SECTOR, III CROSS, AMRUTHA NAGAR MAIN RAOD, AMRITHANAGAR, BENGALURU. 12. DR.J. MOHAN, S/O K.P. JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO. 60, 13TH CROSS, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BENGALURU. 13. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA, W/O G.K. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 14. SRI.K. GANGADHAR S/O G.K. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 15. SMT. K. GAYATHRI, D/O G.K., KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 R/AT ASHWATHAAKATTE ROAD, AMRUTHAHALLI, SAHAKARA NAGAR POST, BENGALURU. 16. SRI.K. GAJENDRA S/O G.K. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS. 13 TO 16 ARE R/AT ASHWATHAAKATTE ROAD, AMRUTHAHALLI, SAHAKARA NAGAR POST, BENGALURU. 17. MASTER G. KARTHIK, S/O N. GANGESH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 18. MASTER G. GANESH, S/O N. GANGESH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT ASHWATHAAKATTE ROAD, AMRUTHAHALLI, SAHAKARA NAGAR POST, BENGALURU. 19. SRI. M. VENKATESH S/O B. MARKANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 20. SMT. V. UMA S/O SRI. M. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ARE R/AT NO. 51, 13TH MAIN, SREENIVASANAGAR, BENGALURU. 21. SRI.M. SURESH, S/O SRI. SUBRAMANYA.M. AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 R/AT NO. 685, 13TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, SREENIVASANAGAR, BENGALURU. 22. SRI. MAHESH, S/O SI. H.N. SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 23. SMT. D.V. ARCHANA, W/O SRI. MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENTS R/AT NO. 209, 3E CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU, AND ALSO AT FLAT NO. 108, 3RD FLOOR, BALAJI NEST, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU. 24. SMT. K. JEYAPRIYA, W/O SRI.D. SRIRAGHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 25. SRI.D. SRIRAGHAVAN, S/O SRI. DURAISWAMI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDNETS R/AT NO. G-301, ABODH VALMARK APARTMENT 141-35-13, VEERANNAPALYA RAOD, GOVINDA ARABIC COLLEGE POST, NAGAVARA, BENGALURU. AND ALSO AT FLAT NO. 706, SECOND FLOOR, BALAJI MOONARC, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 26. SRI. NITIN BHARATRAO GORDE, S/O MR. BHARATH VITTHAL GORDE, R/AT PRATISHA COTTAGE, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. TO CORPORATION BANK, KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU AND ALSO AT FLAT NO. 406, SECOND FLOOR, BALAJI LEGEND, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 27. SMT. CHITRALEKHA.G. W/O SRI. VIVEK.C.S. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 28. SRI. VIVEK C.S. S/O LATE SHIVANNA C.S. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENTS R/AT NO. 365, C.B. MALLAPPA ROAD, KURUBARASHRENI SCHOOL STREET, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR. FLAT NO. 302, GROUND FLOOR, BALAJI LEGEND, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 29. SRI. SOORAJ J. PRABHU S/O LATE JAYANTH PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 R/AT C-301, NANDISH PARK APARTMENT, 19TH CROSS, BANGAPPA GARDEN, MUTHYALANAGAR, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU. AND ALSO AT FLAT NO. 806, SECOND FLOOR, BALAJI MOONARC, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 30. SMT. SHILPA.M. SAGARI, W/O MR. MRUTHYUNJAYA S. SAGARI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 31. SRI. MRUTHYUNJAYA S. SAGARI S/O SRI. SHRISHAIL M. SAGARI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDNETS ARE R/AT SURYA KIRAN APARTMENT GROUND FLOOR, NO. 4381, A BLOCK, 4TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR, BENGALURU. AND ALSO AT FLAT NO. 402, GROUND FLOOR, BALAJI LEGEND, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 32. SMT. GADDI VANDI, W/O SRI. C. SUNIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: 33. SRI.C. SUNIL KUMAR S/O C. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENTS R/AT NO. 48, 3RD MAIN, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU. ALSO AT FLAT NO. 403, 1ST FLOOR, BALAJI LEGEND, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 34. SRI.A.M. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, S/O A.S. MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO. C-102/15, 3RD MAIN, AMARJYOTHI NAGAR LAYOUT, SANJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU. ……RESPONDENTS (BY * SRI. G.V. SHASHI KUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; V/O DATED 23.07.2025, NOTICE TO R3 TO R33 IS D/W) THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT06.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.22 IN O.S.NO.2184/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, (CCH-13), ALLOWING IA NO.22 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. * Deleted vide chamber order dated 10.09.2025 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT MFA Nos.4209/2025 is filed by the legal heirs of defendant No.3 and MFA No.4186/2025 is filed by defendant No.1 challenging the order dated 06.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.22 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.2184/2008 on the file of V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-13)1 thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is allowed. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. Heard the arguments from learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 1hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 4. The plaintiffs have filed suit for partition and separate possession by claiming 1/4th share by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs have stated genealogy tree as follows: 5. The plaintiffs have contended that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties. Initially, while filing the suit in the year 2008, item Nos.1 to 10 of the schedule properties alone were included in the suit. Subsequently in the year 2010, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking to amend the plaint by including item Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties. At the time of filing the suit in the year 2008, the plaintiff namely Chinnamma had filed I.A.No.1 for an order of (NANJUNDAPPA) (KURLAPPA) (GANGAPPA) WIFE (KEMPAMMA) DODDAKR ISHNAMM A D4 G.K.KRISHNAPPA D1 CHIKKA KRISHNAMMA D5 (DODDAKKAMMA) (CHIKKAKKAMMA) (KRISHNAPPA) (CHINNAMMA) (GOWRAMMA) (K.NANJUN DAPPA) WIFE KAMAKSHAMMA @ KAMAKKA D2 N.GANGESH D3 CINNAMMA PLAINTIFF - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 temporary injunction in respect of item Nos.1 to 10 of the schedule properties, which is still pending. Later, in the year 2024, the plaintiffs being legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff, filed I.A.No.22 for grant of an order of temporary injunction in respect of item Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties. I.A.No.22 is filed to the effect that restraining defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 9 to 14 as well as their agents, servants, from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule properties by way of sale, gift and lease etc., in favour of any other third parties. 6. The Trial Court has allowed the application on the reason that prima facie the plaintiffs have shown that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties and are all valuable properties. The defendants have made an attempt to alienate the properties behind back of the plaintiffs and if the schedule properties are alienated, it would create multiplicity of proceedings. When there is a triable issue of whether item Nos.11 to 20 are self-acquired properties of defendant Nos.1 and 3, the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 Court formed an opinion to grant an order of temporary injunction and accordingly granted. This is the main reason assigned by the Trial Court while granting the order of temporary injunction. 7. Questioning the same, defendant No.1 and the legal heirs of defendant No.3 have filed the above said two respective appeals. 8. Sri. Suryanarayana and Sri. Naganand learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted in consonance with the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal that item Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties are self-acquired properties of defendant Nos.1 and 3. These properties were acquired by the defendants in the year 1996 with their own source of income without using the joint nucleus fund of the family. When this being the fact, the plaintiffs knew very well that while filing the suit in the year 2008, these item Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties were self-acquired properties - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 of defendant Nos.1 and 3. Hence, they were not included in the suit when it was originally filed. Therefore, the very conduct of the plaintiffs in the year 2010, including item Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties in the suit, is nothing but causing deprivation of legitimate rights of defendant No.1 and legal heirs of defendant No.3 over these properties. 9. Further submitted that though item Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties were included in the suit in the year 2010 by way of amendment to the plaint, which was allowed, I.A.No.22 for temporary injunction filed only in the year 2024. This is also one more circumstance of conduct that the plaintiffs knew that these are self-acquired properties of defendant No.1 and the legal heirs of defendant No.3, but the plaintiffs added these properties to the plaint to harass defendants. Further submitted that before filing the suit in the year 1996, defendant Nos.1 and 3 purchased item Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties and the suit filed in the year 2008. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 Therefore, the plaintiffs ought to have filed suit for relief of declaration challenging the sale deeds of the year 1996, but have not challenged the same. Hence, the present suit filed for permanent injunction is not maintainable. Additionally, Kamakshamma @ Kamakka, defendant No.2, who was the wife of K. Nanjundappa had bequeathed certain properties in favour of her grandchildren (children of defendant No.3) through a Will. There are two Wills i.e., one unregistered and second one is registered; therefore, submitted that the suit filed for partition as against item Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties is not maintainable. Hence, prays to allow the appeals by setting aside the order passed on I.A.No.22 granting an order of temporary injunction. 10. During the course of arguments, Sri. T. Suryanarayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/defendants placed reliance on the documents and various judgments, which are as follows: - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 1. Copy of I.A.No.1 filed in O.S.No.2184/2008. 2. Copy of the cancellation deed dated 15.04.2025. 3. KRISHNA MOORTHY J. VS. BANGALORE TURF CLUB AND OTHERS2(Krishna Moorthy case) 4. BAJRANGAL SHIVCHANDRAI RIA VS. SHASHIKANT N. RUIA3 (Bajranglal Shivchandrai Ruia case) 5. ASMA LATEEF AND ANOTHER VS. SHABBIR AHMAD AND OTHERS4 (Asma Lateef and Another case) 6. B.K. CHANDRASHEKAR VS. B.C. ARUN KUMAR5 (B.K. Chandrashekar case) 7. NARASAMMA VS. AKKAMMA6 (Narasamma case) 8. V.N. MANJUNATH VS. K.N. THIMMEGOWDA7 (V.N. Manjunath case) 2(1975) 2 Kar L.J. 428 3(2004) 5 SCC 272 4(2024) 4 SCC 696 5MFA No.5428/2017 62019 Online Kar 3847 7WP No.188/2016 - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 9. SHIV KUMAR CHANDHA VS. MUNCIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI8(Shiv Kumar Chadha case) 11. Sri. Nagananda, learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the some documents and various judgments, which are as follows: 1. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 30.03.2024 2. OMKAR AND OTHERS VS. SAMBHAJI AND ANOTHER9(Omkar’s case) 3. SUHRID SINGAH ALIAS SARDOOL SINGH VS. RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS10(Suhrid Singh’s case) 4. RAGHAWENDRA SHARAN SINGH VS. RAM PRASANNA SINGH (DEAD) BY LR’S11 (Raghawendra Sharan Singh’s case) 5. RUDRAPPA VS. H.R. SHIVAKUMAR AND OTHERS12(Rudrappa’s case) 8(1993) 3 SCC 161 9MFA No.100407/2021 c/w MFA No.100406/2021 10(2010) 12 SCC 112 11(2020) 16 SCC 601 12ILR 2012 Kar 5420 - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 6. PUTTAMMA DEAD BY LRS VS. THIPPELINGAPPA DEAD BY LRS13 (Puttamma’s case) 7. GOWRISHANKARA SWAMIGALU VS. SRI. SIDDHAGANGA MUTT14 (Gowrishankara’s case) 8. ZENIT METAPLAST PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS15 (Zenit Mataplast Private Limited case) 9. ERAPPA VS. THE KARNATAKA KURUBAR BOARDING AND OTHERS16 (Erappa’s case) 10. ANN VARGHESE AND OTHERS VS. K.V. PRASAD AND OTHERS17(ANN Varghese case) 12. On the other hand, Sri. Shyam Sundar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs vehemently submitted by justifying the order passed by the Trial Court that prima facie it is satisfied that item 132015 SCC Online Kar 1008 14ILR 1989 Kar 1701 15(2009) 10 SCC 388 16WP No.106540/2014 and connected matters 17MFA No. 4185/2025 c/w MFA No.4187/2025 - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties and the same were purchased by defendant Nos.1 and the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.3 out of joint nucleus funds. There are materials produced before the Trial Court and after considering the same, it is found that the plaintiffs have a prima facie case; hence, passed an order of temporary injunction. Further submitted that if item Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties are alienated, then it would cause multiplicity of proceedings. Further submitted that whether item Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties are self- acquired properties of defendant Nos.1 and 3 or are the ancestral and joint family properties is a question to be triable in the suit. Therefore, when an issue is made for trial, the case involved is a prima facie case and balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiffs. Thus, if the schedule properties are alienated, it would cause injury to the plaintiffs’ share. Therefore, after satisfying all these factors, the Trial Court rightly granted an order of - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 temporary injunction. Thus, they supported the order passed by the Trial Court. 13. In support of the arguments, learned Senior Counsel Sri. Shyam Sundar, appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs produced some documents and placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSI VS. HARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI AND OTHERS18 (Ramakant Ambalal Choksi case). 14. Upon considering the rival submissions of both the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record at this stage, the following point would arise for my consideration: “Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiffs make out a prima facie case warranting the grant of an order of temporary injunction by proving that the balance of convenience lies in their favour and if temporary injunction is not granted, whether it 182024 INSC 910 - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 would cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiffs?” 15. The suit is one for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds simplicitor. The plaintiffs have asserted in the plaint that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties. Initially, while filing the suit in the year 2008, the plaintiffs have included item Nos.1 to 10 properties only; subsequently, they filed an application for amendment of the plaint to include item Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties, contending that these properties are also ancestral and joint family properties. 16. The plaintiffs have filed an I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking an order of temporary injunction insofar as item Nos.1 to 10 of schedule properties, but the said application is pending more than 14 years. In the year 2024, the plaintiffs filed another application, I.A.No.22 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 seeking an order of temporary injunction in respect of item Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties, which were included subsequently in the year 2010 through an amendment to the plaint. According to the submission made by the learned counsels for the appellants, non disclosing the pendency of I.A.No.1 into I.A.No.22 amounts to suppression of facts. It is true that the plaintiffs have not pursued I.A.No.1 to its logical conclusion even after 14 years. I.A.No.1 is still pending for consideration. The plaintiffs have not pleaded what subsequent developments and changed circumstances warranted filing of I.A.No.22. If the plaintiffs have grievance in respect of item Nos.1 to 10 of the schedule properties being alienated, which would cause prejudice and to lead multiplicity of proceedings, the same grounds apply to I.A.No.22. However, upon considering both I.A.No.22 and I.A.No.1, no substantial subsequent developments were found warranting the filing of I.A.No.22. - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 17. When this being the fact, it is relevant to place reliance on the decisions quoted by both the learned counsel appearing for the parties: 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSI (supra) at paragraph Nos.20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 32 and 36, has held as under: “APPELLATE JURISDICTION UNDER ORDER 43 OF THE CPC 20. Order 43 of the CPC specifies the orders against which an appeal lies. Sub- Rule (r) of Rule 1 of the said order provides that an appeal would lie against an order made under Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 and 10 of Order 39 of the CPC respectively. 21. The law in relation to the scope of an appeal against grant or non-grant of interim injunction was laid down by this Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. reported in 1990 Supp SCC 727. Antox brought an action of passing off against Wander with respect to the mark Cal-De- Ce. The trial court declined Antox’s plea for an interim injunction, however, on appeal the High Court reversed the findings of the trial judge. This Court, upon due consideration of the matter, took notice of two egregious errors said to have been committed by the High Court: a. First, as regards the scope and nature of the appeals before it and the limitations on the powers of the appellate court to substitute its own discretion in an appeal preferred against a discretionary order; and - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 b. Secondly, the weakness in ratiocination as to the quality of Antox’s alleged user of the trademark on which the passing off action is founded. 24.xxx 25. In Evans (supra) case, Lord Wright made it clear that while adjudicating upon the discretion exercised by the trial court, the appellate court is obliged to consider the case put forward by the appellant in favour of its argument that the trial court exercised its discretion arbitrarily or incorrectly in the circumstances. 26. What flows from a plain reading of the decisions in Evans (supra) and Charles Osenton (supra) is that an appellate court, even while deciding an appeal against a discretionary order granting an interim injunction, has to: a. Examine whether the discretion has been properly exercised, i.e. examine whether the discretion exercised is not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the principles of law; and b. In addition to the above, an appellate court may in a given case have to adjudicate on facts even in such discretionary orders. 27. The principles of law explained by this Court in Wander’s (supra) have been reiterated in a number of subsequent decisions of this Court. However, over a period of time the test laid down by this Court as regards the scope of interference has been made more stringent. The emphasis is now more on perversity rather than a mere error of fact or law in the order granting injunction pending the final adjudication of the suit. 28. xxx 29. xxx 30. xxx 31. xxx - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 32. The appellate court in an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or declining to grant interim injunction is only required to adjudicate the validity of such order applying the well settled principles governing the scope of jurisdiction of appellate court under Order 43 of the CPC which have been reiterated in various other decisions of this Court. The appellate court should not assume unlimited jurisdiction and should guide its powers within the contours laid down in the Wander (supra) case. 33. xxx 34. xxx 35. xxx 36. The expression "perverse" has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: a. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Ed. Perverse - Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable. b. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English - International Edition Perverse - Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable. c. The New Oxford Dictionary of English - 1998 Edition Perverse - Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. d. New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition) Perverse - Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. e. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Ed. - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 Perverse - A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence.” 19. This Court in the case of Krishna Moorthy J (Supra) at paragraph No.9, has held as under: “9. Let me now turn to the merits of the contention……………….. The Court must pertinently put the question, “will the plaintiff suffer irreparable damage if no injunction is granted now?” Last but not the least the Court always must look to the conduct of the plaintiff and will refuse to interfere even in cases where it acknowledges his right unless his conduct in the matter has been fair and honest and in particular without acquiescence or delay.” 20. This Court in the case of GOWRISHANKARA (Supra) at paragraph No.26, has held as under: “26. In other words the existence of a prima facie case or even a very strong prima facie case does not permit leap-frogging by the plaintiff directly to an injunction without crossing the other hurdles in between, In England before the advent of the decision in AMERICAN CYNAMID CO. v. ETHICON LTD. referred to and followed by this Court in L.I.C. v. Bangalore L.I.C.E.H.C.S. LTD. the existence of a prima facie case strong enough to ensure fool-proof success ultimately of the lis was treated as the criterion for the grant of any ad interim injunction. But that view underwent a sea change following the decision in Cynamid Company v. Ethicon Limited wherein the House of Lords said, in order to ascertain whether a prima facie case did exist or not, it was not necessary to hold a mini trial at the threshold but it would be sufficient if an endeavour was made by the Court to identify that the suit 'Claim was neither - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 vexatious or too casual for consideration. It is in that context this Court in L.I.C. v. Bangalore L.I.C.E.H.C.S. Ltd. made the following statement at para 24: "The preventive remedy of injunction is thus granted as an instant antidote to stop or prevent the invasion of the plaintiff's rights in regard to which a complaint is made. The Court having regard to the expediency involved should not embark upon a nit- picking operation at that stage by holding a mini trial to lay thread-bare the case of the plaintiff to find out if a prima facie case is made out or not. It would be sufficient if the Court is assured that questions raised by the plaintiff are not vexatious or too casual, but are such as to merit serious consideration at a subsequent stage." There is overwhelming authority-for the proposition that mere existence of a prima facie case or a very strong prima facie case does not ipso facto justify the grant of an injunction (See in this connection J. KRISHNAMOORTHY v. BANGALORE TURF CLUB ILR (Kar) 1975, 1957, and NATIONAL ADVERTISES v. M.S.R.T.C 1963(2) Mys.L.J. Therefore even granting that the plaintiff has an invincible prima facie case, he will not be entitled ex debitiae justiciae, to the grant of an injunction unmindful of other consequences. If the consequences of granting an injunction are detrimental in nature then an injunction will not be granted even though the plaintiff might have an unbeatable prima facie case. It is precisely for this reason and just as the learned Judge in the Court below did, I must also desist from pronouncing finally on the question of niceities raised and argued by both sides touching the tainted character or otherwise of the impugned order made by the Senior Pontiff in removing the junior from office. A Court, it is said, like a human being must cross a bridge only when it comes across the same and not leap blindly even before it is reached and, it being not necessary to decide all - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 these questions at this stage, I must desist from recording a finding on all these questions as that would be forestalling the issues arising in the suit.” 21. Further, this Court in the case of B.K. CHANDRASHEKAR (supra) at paragraph Nos.10 and 14, has held as follows: “10. On hearing both sides and perusing the impugned order, firstly it can be stated that the trial court has just proceeded on the ground that the issue whether suit properties belong to the defendants exclusively or not can be decided only after full fledged trial, or in other words its opinion is that the plaintiff has made out a case for trial. No doubt the averments made in the plaint do indicate that the plaintiff has pleaded some cause of action which according to the trial court shows existence of a case for trial. Indeed it is true that one of the tests or yardsticks applied to find out whether a prima facie case exists or not, is to see whether the plaintiff has made out a serious case for trial or not. If this is the only test applied, invariably in every case the plaintiff pleads cause of action and thus it has to be opined that a case for trial exists. Every case cannot be assessed in the same yardstick. The facts and circumstances play a vital role. The court is also bound to make an exercise to find out as to what impression can be made out apparently from the documents produced by the parties. If the documents project a picture that the plaintiff’s case is not frivolous and that he has not come to the court unnecessarily, it can be opined that prima facie case exists. 11. Xxx 12. Xxx 13. xxx - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 14. Thus seen, the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case at all. It is true that usually in a suit for partition, order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party interests is granted to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and future litigations. Even to grant this type of an order the plaintiff must show that on facts he is entitled to bring a suit for partition. The interim order should not be a weapon in the hands of the plaintiff to compel partition of a property which may not appear to be amenable for partition. The impugned order passed by the trial court clearly shows non-application of mind. It is arbitrary to grant an injunction in the set of circumstances pleaded by the plaintiff. Hence, there is a need to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the following order : - (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 21.4.2017 on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in O.S.25238/2015 is vacated. The said application is dismissed. (iii) There is no order as to costs.” 22. Further, this Court in the case of NARASAMMA AND OTHERS (supra) at paragraph Nos.43, 44, 45 and 46, has held as follows: “43. On going through contentions of the learned counsel and having regard to the material on record, I find that grant of interim injunction during the pendency of a legal proceeding is a matter resting with the exercise of discretion of the court. While exercising the discretion, the court has to apply the following tests: a) Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 b) Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and c) Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if the prayer for interim injunction is disallowed. 44. Prima facie case and prima facie title are not the same and are distinct. It is not desirable to record decision on merits when deciding prima facie case. The prima facie case really means that there is a case which required trial and that the case is not the one based on erroneous and vexatious grounds. When deciding the question prima facie case, it is generally not desirable and open for the court to record a decision on the merits of the pleas taken in the suit and those findings will not have any binding effect on the parties at the time of the final hearing of the case and it shall always be open to raise respective contentions and it is for the court to decide according to law at that stage. 45. The object of interim injunction is to protect plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from preventing him exercising legal right for which he could not adequately be compensated. The court must weigh the need of interim injunction and determine where balance of convenience lies in order to protect plaintiff, while granting an interim injunction in his favour. 46. Further, jurisdiction of the court to interfere with an order of interim or temporary injunction is purely equitable and therefore, the court on being approached, apart from other consideration, will also look at the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court. The court may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blemish. Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court has to - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing out the state of things complained of and further that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealing with the party against whom he was seeking relief. The conduct of the plaintiff must be fair and honest. These considerations will arise not only in respect of person who seeks an order of injunction but also the defendant who approaches the court for vacating the ad-interim or temporary injunction order already granted in the pending proceedings.” 23. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs vehemently contended that in the month of January-2025, the legal heirs’ branches of Kurlappa and Krishnappa have partitioned the properties, which prima facie shows that still all these properties are ancestral and joint family properties. During the course of argument, the registered partition deeds are produced and to this counter, learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 has produced the cancellation deed of the month of April-2025, that the earlier partition deeds of the month of January-2025 were cancelled on the reason that due to inadvertence, some of the self-acquired properties of defendant Nos.1 and 3 were also included; therefore, cancellation deeds were executed. - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 24. The Trial Court has mainly swayed away by the fact that the relationship between the parties is not disputed and had observed that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties, but the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the circumstances of conduct of the plaintiffs why item Nos.11 to 20 of schedule properties were not included in the suit when the suit was filed for the first time. No doubt all the properties are valuable properties; therefore, only on this pretext, the Trial Court granted an order of temporary injunction. 25. It is pertinent to note here that defendant Nos.1 and 3 have contended that they have purchased item Nos.11 to 20 of schedule properties through various sale deeds in the year 1996. The suit is filed in the year 2008. If the plaintiffs knew the fact that item Nos.11 to 20 of schedule properties are also ancestral and joint family properties, then the same would have been included in the suit initially when the suit was filed. This is one of the conducts of the circumstances that go against the - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 plaintiffs. The sale deeds are of the year 1996, much prior to filing of the suit. If the plaintiffs contended that item Nos.11 to 20 are ancestral and joint family properties as they are purchased out of joint nucleus fund, then the plaintiffs ought to have challenged the said sale deeds by claiming relief of declaration, but that is not done so by the plaintiffs. 26. Furthermore, the suit is filed for partition and separate possession, wherein the plaintiffs’ claim is 1/4th share. Just because there is contentious issue or an issue involved that is triable does not amount to making out a case or having prima facie case. In the suit, both sides may have prima facie case, but while granting an equitable relief of a temporary injunction, the prima facie would be considered based on who is more probable in proving the prima facie case warranting the grant of an order of temporary injunction. It is needless to say that whatever transactions take place which are hit by Section - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the TP Act). 27. It is the case of defendant Nos.1 and 3 that in the year 1996 itself, item Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties were purchased by them; therefore, the said sales are against the whole world, but the plaintiffs kept silent. By this conduct of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs might have known that item Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties might not have been ancestral and joint family properties; therefore, kept silent till the year 2010. Thereafter an application for temporary injunction was filed in the year 2024. Therefore, the defendants raised the maintainability of the suit so far as against item Nos.11 to 20 of the schedule properties. 28. When this being the fact, the Trial Court is not correct in ordering and granting an order of temporary injunction. The Trial Court while passing the order has mainly swayed away from the principles governing grant - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 of order of temporary injunction. However, the Trial Court failed to discuss what prima facie case was made out by the plaintiffs to grant an order of temporary injunction, except saying that if temporary injunction is not granted, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and there is a triable issue to show that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties. 29. Further, the Trial Court places reliance on the memorandum of understanding, which is according to the counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 produced after the completion of arguments on I.A.No.22. Therefore, upon considering the entire case on its records as now produced along with materials and applying the principles of law governing the grant of temporary injunction, the Trial Court is not correct in allowing I.A.No.22 while granting an order of temporary injunction. Moreover, the right of the plaintiffs even if the suit is decreed as per their prayer, would be limited to 1/4th share only. Therefore, for claiming 1/4th share in the suit - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 schedule properties even if the suit is decreed but restraining alienation in respect of all the properties on the premise that they are ancestral and joint family properties is not correct. Even if whatever alienations may be taken place, they would be subject to the result of the suit as hit by Section 52 of the TP Act. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons the Court is of the opinion that grant of an order of temporary injunction by the Trial Court is not correct. Accordingly, I answer point in the Negative. 30. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. MFA Nos.4209 and 4186 of 2025 are allowed. ii. The order dated 06.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.22 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.2184/2008 on the file of V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-13) is hereby set aside. - 44 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29758 MFA No. 4209 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4186 of 2025 iii. However, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations above stated while considering the case on its merits. iv. It is made clear that whatever observations made above are only in respect of considering the propriety and legality of the order passed by the Trial Court and nothing else. v. The suit of the year 2008; therefore, the Trial Court shall make every endeavor to expedite the Trial and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. vi. No order as to costs. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28