- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27546 MFA No. 205 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 205 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. SRI. KENCHAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKONAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 3. SRI. HANUMAIAH S/O LATE KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4. SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 5. SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 6. SRI. NAGARAJU. K S/O LATE KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.194, KUMBALAGODU GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST KENGERI HOBLI Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27546 MFA No. 205 of 2025 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 074 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE KARIYAPPA W/O SHIVANNA K.N AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2 . SMT. KENCHAMMA D/O LATE KARIYAPPA W/O PUTTARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT MUKKO`DALU VILLAGE THATTAGUPPE POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 082 3 . SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE KARIYAPPA W/O VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 4 . SRI. K. HANUMAIAH S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 5 . SRI K. SRINIVAS S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1, 3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT KULLEGOWDANAPALYA VILLAGE KUMBALAGODU GOLLAHALLI POST KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 074 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27546 MFA No. 205 of 2025 6 . SMT. MANGAMMA W/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 7 . SMT. AKKAYYAMMA W/O LATE KARI KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7 ARE RESIDING AT KUMBALAGODU GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 074 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO.1122/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27546 MFA No. 205 of 2025 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is instituted under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, "CPC"), challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.1122/2024. By the said order, the learned trial Court has allowed I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, thereby restraining the appellants/defendants from alienating or creating any encumbrance upon the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. Now the present appellants aggrieved by this Interlocutory order have approached this Court contending that impugned order is erroneous, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. 2. The respondents herein, as plaintiffs before the trial Court, had instituted this suit seeking relief of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27546 MFA No. 205 of 2025 declaration that, they are the absolute and lawful owners of the suit schedule property. They further sought a consequential relief of permanent injunction against the appellants. The foundation of their claim was based upon the grant, said to have been made by the Competent Authority in favour of their father, by name Kariyappa, in the year 1963. According to the plaintiffs, the property continued to stand in their father's name in the revenue records, and upon his demise, they succeeded to the property as his natural legal heirs. They alleged that, the appellants, who are legal representatives of Kariyappa's brothers, had unlawfully and fraudulently created certain Release Deeds and got their names mutated in the revenue records, despite having no legal or equitable claim over the said property. 3. The appellants in opposition to the interim application, submitted that, the property in question had been the subject matter of a family partition, which culminated in a registered Partition Deed dated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27546 MFA No. 205 of 2025 12.01.2012. They asserted that, this Partition Deed had been acted upon by all the branches of the family, including the respondents, and that each branch had taken possession of their respective share without any demur. 4. It was submitted that, the plaintiffs were not only aware of the partition but had accepted its terms and remained silent for a substantial period of time. The appellants contended that, the suit was thus not only barred by limitation, but also defective for non-joinder of necessary parties, and the interim relief was liable to be rejected on these fundamental grounds. In support of their claim, they produced the registered Partition Deed, Mutation Records and certain Sale Deeds to demonstrate that, the property had already been dealt with and was not in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs. 5. Upon consideration of the material placed before it, the learned trial Court was of the view that, plaintiffs had established a prima facie case entitling them to interim protection. The learned trial Court noted the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27546 MFA No. 205 of 2025 existence of the original grant made in the year 1963 in favour of Kariyappa, and the corresponding revenue entry reflecting the same. It is observed that, plaintiffs had raised serious and rival issues considering the validity and clarity of the partition and Release Deeds relied upon by the defendants. The Court concluded that, the balance of convenience tilts with the plaintiffs, who would otherwise suffer irreparable loss and hardship, if the defendants were permitted to alienate or encumber the property during the pendency of the suit. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that, the trial Court erred in ignoring vital documents such as the registered Partition Deed and Mutation entries, which clearly demonstrate that, the plaintiffs had lost their exclusive claim over the suit property. It was argued that, the plaintiffs had acquiesced to the partition arrangements and had taken benefit of the same, and that their subsequent challenge to the validity - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27546 MFA No. 205 of 2025 of the document was a dishonest and belated attempt to unsettle the settled matters. 7. The appellants further argued that, the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiffs had approached the Court after an inordinate delay without offering any explanation, and had suppressed material facts to mislead the Court. According to them, the trial Court should have declined to grant any equitable relief at the interim stage. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents reiterated that, the plaintiffs were the lawful successors of the original grantee Kariyappa and that the appellants/defendants had no independent right or title to the property. It was asserted that, the alleged partition was fraudulent, unilateral and not binding on the plaintiffs, who were neither signatories nor consenting parties to the same, as all the plaintiffs attained majority in the year 2012. It was further argued that, allowing the defendants to transact with the property during the pendency of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27546 MFA No. 205 of 2025 suit would irreversibly affect the plaintiff's rights and would likely to give rise to unnecessary multiplicative litigation. The learned counsel emphasized that, the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case that warranted protection of the status quo until final adjudication. 9. This court, having examined the contentions of both sides and upon a detailed appraisal of the impugned order, is of the considered opinion that, the learned trial Court has exercised its discretion judicially, reasonably, and in consonance with the well-settled legal principles applicable to interlocutory matters. The trial Court has not ventured into questions that require a full-fledged trial, but has merely examined whether the plaintiffs have a plausible and arguable case on merits. The order is a reflection of a careful balancing of a competitive activity, and this Court sees no error or impropriety in the manner in which the discretion has been exercised. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27546 MFA No. 205 of 2025 10. It is well recognized that, the grant of a temporary injunction is not meant to determine the rights of the parties finally, but only to ensure that, the subject matter of the suit is preserved until the Court can adjudicate the issues comprehensively. When the plaintiffs established that, there is a genuine dispute over title and ownership, and that there exists a real threat of alienation or encumbrance, which would render the final relief illusory or negatory, Courts are justified in stepping into maintain status quo. The trial Court's finding that, irreparable harm would be caused to the plaintiffs, if protection was not granted cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. 11. The arguments of the appellants that Revenue Records and Partition Deeds are confirmed binding rights at the interlocutory stage is untenable. Entries in revenue records are not conclusive proof of title, and the legality or otherwise of the Partition Deed - particularly when its very validity is under challenge - cannot be summarily assumed - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27546 MFA No. 205 of 2025 in favour of one party to the exclusion of the other. The question of whether the plaintiffs have accepted the partition and thereby waived their right is a disputed fact. That must be established through evidence at trial and not presumed at the stage of interim orders. 12. Furthermore, this Court is of the view that, permitting any alienation or transaction concerning the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit would lead to unnecessary complexities and may frustrate the very purpose of the litigation. It would inevitably lead to the involvement of the third parties, introduction of new claims, and dilution of judicial resources. To prevent such eventualities, and to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, the maintenance of the status quo is not only justified but necessary. 13. In this backdrop, the trial Court's conclusion that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lies in their favour and that they would suffer irreparable loss in the absence of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27546 MFA No. 205 of 2025 protection is well founded. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court, which is neither capricious nor arbitrary. The appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. 14. Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal stands dismissed. (ii) The order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.1122/2024, allowing I.A.No.I is hereby confirmed. (iii) The trial Court is requested to proceed with the suit and dispose of the same expeditiously with all its promptitude, in accordance with law. (iv) No orders as to cost. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49