- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28946 MFA No. 2649 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2649 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: DR. C. RAMESH S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.595 'F' BLOCK, 14TH MAIN RAOD SAHAKARANAGARA BANGALORE-560 092 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.S. VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT. C. BHAVANI @ HAMSA D/O LATE CHINNAPPA W/O NARENDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 177 8TH MAIN, C.Q.A.L. LAYOUT SAHAKARANAGARA BANGALORE-560 092 2 . SMT. RAJAMMA W/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS C/O SRI. SHANKAR REDDY RESIDING AT NO. 4 1ST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28946 MFA No. 2649 of 2024 'G' BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 092 3 . SMT. C. SRIMATHI D/O LATE CHINNAPPA W/O SRI. B.P. THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.7, 1ST CROSS BEHIND DASAPPA'S HOUSE SHABARINAGAR BYATARAYAPURA BENGALURU-560 092 4 . SRI. C. VENKATESH S/O LATE CHINNAPPA C/O SHANKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 4 1ST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS 'G' BLOCK, SAHAKARNAGAR BENGALURU-560 092 5 . SRI. C. MANJUNATH S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 58 20TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS 'G' BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 092 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DTD.25.04.2024 NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENTS ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NOs.I, II AND IV IN O.S.NO. 2845/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28946 MFA No. 2649 of 2024 VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-15), ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.I FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO. II FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND REJECTING THE I.A.NO IV FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 4 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Misc.First Appeal, is instituted by the appellant Dr.C.Ramesh, challenging the legality and correctness of the common order dated 16th April 2024 passed by the 8th Addl.CCH, Bengaluru in OS No.2845/2018. The said order arose out of the interlocutory applications filed by the parties during the pendency of the partition suit. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court allowed I.A. Nos.1 and 2 filed by respondent no.1, Smt.C.Bhavani alias Hamsa under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and consequently, granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants therein from alienating suit schedule `A' - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28946 MFA No. 2649 of 2024 properties and from receiving compensation or sites allotted by the BDA in relation to the acquired Schedule `B' properties. In the same breadth, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.IV filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC which sought to vacate the interim order of status quo previously passed. 2. The appellant has assailed the impugned order on various legal and factual grounds. It is contended that, the suit schedule property were bequeathed to him and his mother respondent no.2 Smt. Rajamma, through a registered Will dated 25th June 1977 executed by their maternal grand father by name Sri J.S.Nannjudappa. According to the appellant, the Will confers exclusive rights over the suit schedule property upon himself and his mother to the exclusion of all other legal heirs including the plaintiff. The appellant further alleges that, the respondent no.1 being the daughter of late Chinnappa and appellant sister is not entitled to seek partition or any interim injunctive reliefs particularly when the title to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28946 MFA No. 2649 of 2024 properties in question is said to have devolved solely under the testamentary document. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that, even in the absence of Will, as the property is devolved from maternal side, the mother of the plaintiff being the class-I heir, is entitled for property and not the plaintiff. The counsel for the appellant further vehemently argued that the trial Court erred in making an observation that, the Will was not acted upon when in fact revenue records have been mutated in his and his mother's names based on the orders passed by this Court in WP No.16866/2013, thereby, acknowledging the effect of the Will. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that, the plaintiff has deliberately suppressed critical material facts such as the existence of the Will and the legal status of the suit schedule properties which are no longer classified as agricultural lands especially in view of their acquisition by the BDA. He would further contend that, such a suppression of facts - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28946 MFA No. 2649 of 2024 disentitles the plaintiff from securing discretionary reliefs in the form of injunctions. He would further contend that, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the binding effect of the mutation entries, which reflect the testamentary devolution of title and were not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. 4. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent no.1/plaintiff has stoutly defended the impugned order. The counsel for the respondent asserts that, suit schedule property are the ancestral and joint family properties originally belonged to their maternal grand father by name sri J.S.Nanjundappa acquired by him under a registered partition deed executed in his family in the year 1960. According to respondent/plaintiff, the properties thus, partake the character of joint family properties and all the legal heirs including the plaintiff are entitled to claim their respective shares. It is her case that, the appellant and other defendants by colluding each other got the revenue entries mutated solely in their favour with an intention to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28946 MFA No. 2649 of 2024 oust the respondent no.1 and other legitimate heirs from their rightful claims. He would further contend that, Will propounded by the appellant is unproven, unprobated and has never been judicially scruitinized and hence, cannot serve as a foundation for denying the plaintiffs right at the interlocutory stage. 5. He would further submit that, even in the absence of will, the plaintiff is the daughter of defendant no.1 inherits the said property by way of succession as it has become the property of her mother. It is further submitted that, the mutation entries secured by the appellant were obtained behind the back of the plaintiff without affording her any notice or any opportunity of being heard. He would further submit that, the appellant himself, in earlier revenue proceedings, had conceded the joint nature of the properties, which belies his present claim of exclusive ownership based on the Will. It is the submission of the respondent no.1 that, the temporary injunctions granted by the trial Court are necessary to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28946 MFA No. 2649 of 2024 protect and preserve the suit schedule property until the rights of the parties are fully and finally adjudicated in the pending partition suit. 6. I have given my consideration to the facts of the case and arguments of both the side and perused the materials placed on record. 7. Upon meticulous examination of the pleadings, the documentary evidence produced by the parties, and the reasoning recorded in the impugned order, this Court finds itself in agreement with the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court. The trial Court has rightly applied the well settled principles governing the grant of temporary injunction namely the existence of prima facie case, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of the plaintiff and the possibility of irreparable injury in the absence of protection. These principles have been adhered to in their letter and spirit while granting the impugned injunctive reliefs. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28946 MFA No. 2649 of 2024 8. The learned trial Court has carefully evaluated the status of the suit properties and the nature of claims made by the parties. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a share or present appellant is entitled to inherit the property by virtue of the so called Will, it is a matter of full fledged trial. When the plaintiff is asserting the status of the properties as joint family properties as admitted by the appellant in the earlier proceedings, then it requires a trial. The finding that, the plaintiff has established a prima facie case based on the ancestral character of suit schedule property is supported by the pleadings and documents on record. The trial Court has correctly taken note of the fact that, plaintiff has not been included in the mutation records and that her exclusion raises a substantial question requiring trial. The finding that, there are contradictions in the stand taken by the appellant - 1 where he relies on the Will to assert his exclusive rights and another where he earlier conceded the joint nature of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28946 MFA No. 2649 of 2024 the properties in revenue proceedings - is cogent and persuasive. 9. This Court also is in agreement with the trial Court conclusion that, balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff particularly in view of the fact that, any alienation or transfer of the suit properties or receipt of compensation in respect of the acquired lands by the BDA may seriously jeoparadize the plaintiff's rights and may render the suit infructuous. The plea for vacation of the interim status-quo order was rightly rejected by the trial Court as the appellant failed to make out any special or compelling circumstances that would justify interference with the subsisting interim arrangements. 10. Though it is argued that, even in the absence of the Will, plaintiff would not succeed, but, there is a pleading to that effect basing the claim of the appellant as exclusive owner along with his mother by virtue of the said Will. Therefore, it is pertinent to note that, the Will dated - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28946 MFA No. 2649 of 2024 25th June 1977, though registered, has not yet been proved in accordance with law. The validity, genuineness and effect of the Will are the matters which can only be determined upon adducing evidence during the course of a full-fledged trial. The attempt of the appellant to rely upon the Will at this ia stage to defeat the plaintiff's plea for temporary injunction is, therefore, premature and misplaced. The trial Court has appropriately treated the will as the disputed document, the validity of which requires deeper adjudication. 11. The contentions advanced by the counsel for the appellant that, the plaintiff suppressed the existence of the Will is equally devoid of merits. The trial Court has duly noted that the existence of the Will was disclosed in the written statement and that the issue was considered while disposing of the interim applications. The appellant's assertion that, the mutation entries in his favour conclusively prove his title is untenable in law. It is trite that, mutation entries are made only for fiscal purposes - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28946 MFA No. 2649 of 2024 and do not confer any title or ownership in themselves. In the present case, the mutation entries are clearly under challenge and are the subject matter of the suit. Hence, no reliance can be placed on them to establish absolute rights at the interim stage. 12. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on sound legal reasoning and balanced appreciation of the facts placed before the trial Court. The grant of temporary injunctions and the continuation of the status- quo order are justified to preserve the subject matter of the suit and protect the plaintiff's rights pending adjudication of the lis between the plaintiff and defendants. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal, and accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28946 MFA No. 2649 of 2024 13. Resultantly, the following: ORDER (i) MFA Stands dismissed. (ii) The order dated 16.4.2024 passed in OS No.2845/2018 by the learned VIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby confirmed. (iii) The interim order of status quo granted by the trial Court shall continue to operate until the disposal of the suit. Under the circumstances, no orders as to costs. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22