- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24932 MFA No. 2371 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 2380 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2371 OF 2025 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2380 OF 2025 IN MFA No. 2371/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B. GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT HITHRAHALLI VILLAGE HANDARAHALLI DHAKALE CHENNARAYAPAPTNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE - 562 165 2. SRI. B. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT HITHRAHALLI VILLAGE HANDARAHALLI DHAKALE CHENNARAYAPAPTNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE - 562 165 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BHANU PRASAD K, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. PADMAMMA W/O LATE SONNAPA Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24932 MFA No. 2371 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 2380 of 2025 D/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 049 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NARENDRA S, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO.5176/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE 69TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH- 70), ALLOWING I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. IN MFA No. 2380/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B. GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT HITHRAHALLI VILLAGE HANDARAHALLI DHAKALE CHENNARAYAPAPTNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE - 562 165 2. SRI. B. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT HITHRAHALLI VILLAGE HANDARAHALLI DHAKALE CHENNARAYAPAPTNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24932 MFA No. 2371 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 2380 of 2025 BANGALORE - 562 165 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BHANU PRASAD K, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. PADMAMMA W/O LATE SONNAPA D/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 049 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NARENDRA S, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.2 IN O.S.NO.5176/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE 69TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-70), ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24932 MFA No. 2371 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 2380 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT These two Miscellaneous First Appeals are directed against the common order dated 26.11.2024 in O.S.No.5176/2022 by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-70), whereby the learned Trial Court allowed both I.A.Nos. I and II filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, "CPC") and thereby directed the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru not to disburse the amount of Rs.1,02,57,837/- deposited in Execution No.52/2012 to the defendants, pending disposal of the suit and also granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, GPA Holders or any other persons acting on their behalf from alienating and encumbering the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. 2. The appellants in both these appeals, who were arrayed as defendants before the Trial Court, have - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24932 MFA No. 2371 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 2380 of 2025 challenged the said order on various grounds, urging that impugned order is erroneous in law and on facts and that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the material placed on record. 3. The genesis of the dispute lies in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff by name Smt. Padmamma claiming to be the daughter of one Late. Byrappa and Smt. Venkatamma. She has sought partition and possession of alleged 1/3rd share in the properties said to be the ancestral and joint family properties, including lands which were subsequently acquired by the Government for the purpose of the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) and for which compensation was awarded. The respondent contends that she has been unjustly excluded by her brothers - the present appellants - not only from the family properties, but also from the compensation disbursed as a result of land acquisition. Her grievance is that, she was left out - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24932 MFA No. 2371 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 2380 of 2025 from the genealogical records and the entire compensation amount was wrongfully claimed by the appellants. 4. In opposition to this pleading, the appellants being the defendants have denied the relationship of the respondent with Late. Byrappa asserting that the respondent/plaintiff is a stranger to the family and that Late. Byrappa and Smt. Venkatamma had only two sons namely these appellants. The appellants further relied on a panchayat parikath (informal family settlement) dated 16.03.1990 wherein, according to them, a partition of the ancestral family property was effected. They also placed reliance on a Compromise Decree passed in O.S.No.7693/2016, which further solidified the division of properties amongst themselves. 5. Additionally, they brought to the attention of this Court, that the respondent had earlier attempted to intervene in Execution Petition No.52/2012, but her impleadment application was dismissed by the Executing - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24932 MFA No. 2371 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 2380 of 2025 Court vide order dated 13.07.2022, and the said dismissal was never challenged by the respondent/plaintiff. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that, the entire compensation so deposited by the Acquisition Authority already been withdrawn by these appellants/defendants. Therefore, the very direction given to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, not to disburse the said amount has become infructuous. 6. It is in this background that the Trial Court, having considered the pleadings and material placed before it, came to the conclusion that, respondent made out prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in preserving the subject matter of the suit pending adjudication. The learned Trial Court further held that alienation of the property and disbursal of compensation at this stage could result in irreparable injury to the respondent/plaintiff, should her claims be ultimately upheld. The appellants have now assailed this order, contending that the Trial Court has committed serious - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24932 MFA No. 2371 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 2380 of 2025 error in excising its discretion in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued with emphasise that, the respondent has not produced a single document to establish her alleged relationship with Late. Byrappa. It was submitted that, no documentary evidence to prove such as, Birth Certificates, Ration Cards, School Admission Records or Marriage Invitation have been produced to support the claim that she is the daughter of Late. Byrappa. 8. Learned counsel further submits that, the respondent has deliberately mis-stated her age by claiming to be 70 years old, when in fact she is older, in an attempt to fabricate a connection with the deceased. It was also argued that, the respondent has approached the Court after an inordinate delay of more than three decades, since the panchayat parikath in the year 1990 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24932 MFA No. 2371 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 2380 of 2025 and six years after the Compromise Decree of 2016, and that such a delay ought to defeat her equitable claim. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants also pointed out that, the order dismissing the impleadment application in Execution No.52/2012 operates as res judicata, and the respondent is thus barred from raising the same issues in a fresh suit. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, even if the respondent is entitle to any relief monetary compensation would suffice, and no irreparable injury would ensue in the absence of interim protection. He placed reliance on authoritative precedent including S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd., reported in (2000) 5 SCC 573, to contend that, delay defeats equity and that injunction cannot be granted where there is no prima facie case. 10. Per Contra the learned counsel for the respondent, in reply urged that, the issue raised on trial cannot be decided at the interim stage. It was argued - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24932 MFA No. 2371 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 2380 of 2025 that whether or not the respondent is the daughter of late Byrappa is the matter requiring detailed trial and cross- examination of witnesses. The respondent was admittedly not a party to the panchayat parikath of 1990, nor the Compromise Decree of 2016 and therefore, the binding effects of those documents on her cannot be presumed without trial. It was further submitted that the impleadment application filed in execution petition No.52/2012 was summarily dismissed and said dismissal does not preclude the institution of a substantive suit for partition, which is the distinct cause of action. The respondent contended that, she has placed oral and circumstantial evidence to support her claim of being a co- person in the joint family and the fact that, she was excluded from all earlier proceedings further fortifies the need to protect her rights. It is further submitted that, if the compensation amount is disbursed or if the suit properties are alienated, her rights, if proved, would be irretrievably lost. In support of her contention, reliance - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24932 MFA No. 2371 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 2380 of 2025 was placed on Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 117 and Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594, to underscore that in matters involving immovable property and family disputes, interim relief is essential to preserve the status quo. 11. Having considered the rival submissions and perusing the material placed on record, this Court finds that, no error or perversity in the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court. The respondent has undoubtedly raised substantial and rival issues, particularly regarding her lineage and her alleged share in the ancestral properties. The question of whether she is the daughter of Late. Byrappa is not one that can be summarily adjudicated at the stage of an interim application. The evidence required to establish or disprove this claim is necessarily to be marshaled during trial. The appellants relied on the panchayath parikath and the said Compromise Decree which have been acted upon. She alleged that she is not a - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24932 MFA No. 2371 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 2380 of 2025 signatory to the proceedings. Whether she is having any right in the suit property or otherwise, it requires full fledged trial. Prima facie, it is appellants, based upon panchayath parikath and compromise decree is in possession of the plaint schedule property. 12. As regards the balance of convenience, at this stage, it is evident that appellants stand to suffer greater prejudice if any interim order so passed is continued. But however, if any alienation takes place, they are subject to the outcome of the suit and such alienation are lis under the doctrine of lis pendens. The respondent, on the other hand, has not demonstrated any hardship that would result from allowing this appeal. Indeed, the right over the properties, if validly existing, can always be established in the final decree proceedings 13. On the aspect of irreparable injury, in a full fledged trial, plaintiff has to establish her status as a daughter of Late. Byrappa and Smt. Venkatamma. Once - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24932 MFA No. 2371 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 2380 of 2025 she establishes, then her rights to claim partition arises. She has kept mum for all these years and filed a suit in the year 2022. Thus, no hardship would be caused to her in case of temporary injunction is refused. It would not prejudice the respondent. The argument of appellant is based on delay and latches, though without substance, cannot be conclusively decided at this stage without full evidence. 14. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has committed error in granting the temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property. Hence, MFA No.2380/2025 is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.11.2024 passed in O.S No.5176/2022 by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-70) is set aside. However, if at all there are any alienation in respect of suit schedule property, such alienations are subject to the out come of the suit and lis under the doctrine of lis pendens. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24932 MFA No. 2371 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 2380 of 2025 15. As discussed supra, during the course of the hearing of these appeals, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the appellants have filed earlier another Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2371/2025 challenging the very same order dated 26.11.2024 passed in O.S.No.5176/2022, on identical grounds. The present appeal substantially covers and traverses the same factual matrix and legal contentions as raised in MFA.No.2380/2025. In view of the findings rendered herein and dismissal of the present appeal, MFA.No.2371/2025 does not survive for independent adjudication. Accordingly, MFA.No.2371/2025 is rendered infructuous in view of the withdrawal of the compensation amount by the appellants and accordingly, it is disposed of. 16. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal in MFA.No.2380/2025 is allowed. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24932 MFA No. 2371 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 2380 of 2025 (ii) The appeal in MFA.No.2371/2025 is dismissed as having become infructuous. (iii) The order dated 26.11.2024 passed in O.S.No.5176/2022 by the learned LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-70), on I.A.No. II is allowed and I.A.No. I is dismissed as infructuous. However, if any alienation of suit property takes place, they are subject to the outcome of the suit in O.S No.5176/2022 and lis under the doctrine of 'lis pendens.' (iv) The Trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit expeditiously with all its promptitude. (v) No orders as to cost. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30