- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2019 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. R. NAGARAJ S/O SRI. M.K. RADHAKRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.80, 2ND MAIN ROAD DEFENCE COLONY BENGALURU-560 038 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAMMITH S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVANANDA S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . 1(A). SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE SRI. CHIKKA CHENNAPPA W/O LATE SRI. MUNIYAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT BELLANDURU VILLAGE VARTHURU HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 037 SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE SRI. MUNIYAPPA AND LATE BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.131 9TH CROSS, BELLANDUR BANGALORE-560 103 Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 1(B). SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O MANJUNATH D/O LATE SRI. MUNIYAPPA AND LATE BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.131 9TH CROSS, BELLANDUR BANGALORE-560 103 [AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE COURT ORDER DTD.28.05.2024) 2 . SRI. H.C. MUNI REDDY S/O LATE SRI. CHIKKA CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 3 . SMT. SHAKUNTHALA W/O LATE SRI. H.C. MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 4 . SMT. H.M. MAMATHA D/O LATE SRI. H.C. MUNI REDDY W/O SRI. PRASANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT HARALURU VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 034 5 . SMT. LAKHMAMMA D/O LATE RATHNAMMA AND LATE APPAJAPPA W/O LATE RAGHURAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 6 . SMT. SARASWATHI D/O LATE RATHNAMMA AND APPAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 7 . SMT. SHANTHA D/O LATE RATHNAMMA AND LATE APPAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 8 . SMT. ANITHA D/O LATE RATHNAMMA AND LATE APPAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 9 . SRI. RAJU D/O LATE RATHNAMMA AND LATE APPAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT MADHURA NAGARA DINNE NEKKUNDI DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE MUTHSANDRA POST SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 560 087 10 . SMT. NANJAMMA W/O LATE RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 11 . SMT. SAVITHA D/O LATE RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.10 AND 11 ARE RESIDING AT JANTHAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 12 . SRI. ERROL FERNANDES S/O SRI. C.V. FERNANDES AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 RESIDING AT No.1212 HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 008 AND ALSO AT NO.95, AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD BENGALURU - 560 017 13 . SRI. AUSTIN ROACH S/O SRI. P.A. ROACH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5, 1ST MAIN DEFENSE COLONY, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 038 14 . M/S FERNS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS NO.95, AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD BENGALURU - 560 017 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS SRI. ERROL FERNANDES & AUSTIN ROACH THE RESPONDENTS NO. 12 AND 13 15 . SRI. H.P. RAMA REDDY S/O LATE CHIKKAPAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.255 36TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011 16 . SRI. A. RAMA REDDY S/O A.R. ASHWATHANARAYAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.453, 15TH CROSS LAKKASANDRA LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 030 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 17 . SRI. R. RAVISHANKAR S/O DR. S. RAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.301, 3RD FLOOR ADARSH HILL APARTMENT OPP. DAYANAND SAGAR COLLAGE KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 078 18 . SRI. G. BHANUPRAKASH S/O SRI. BALAKRISHNAMA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.406, 4TH FLOOR COMFORT PALACE, BTM 1ST STAGE BENGALURU - 560 078 19 . SRI. V. KRISHNA REDDY S/O SRI. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 1092/A 'SRI NILAYAM', 7TH MAIN KEB LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 029 20 . SRI. K. VASUDEVA S/O SRI. KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT SAMASANDRA PALYA BEGURU HOBLI BOMMANAHALLI PANCHAYATHI AGARA POST, BENGALURU - 560 034 21 . SRI. G. PRASAD REDDY S/O SRI. G. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING ATNO. 659, 5TH CROSS 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 034 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 22 . SRI. G. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE SRI. GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT HARALURU VILLAGE VARTHURU HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 034. [RESPONDENTS NO.12 TO 22 IS DELETED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 08.07.2025] …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANUPAMA M.V, ADVOCATE FOR R1[A-B]; SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3, R4 & R16; R5-R12 SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.07.2025 APPEAL AGAINST R12-22 IS DISMISSED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2018 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO. 40/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (C.C.H.16), ALLOWING I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 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 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, 1908 by the appellant who was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 arrayed as 14th defendant in O.S.No.40/2017 before the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The appeal challenges the interlocutory order dated 21.12.2018 passed on I.A.No.1 whereby the trial Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein), restraining the appellant and certain other defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. 2. The appellant has contended in the memorandum of appeal that, the trial Court's decision is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. The appellant has sought to persuade this Court that, the order of temporary injunction is unsustainable in law and on facts, as the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit schedule property, especially in light of a prior partition in the year 1991 and alienation of suit properties as early as 2002. It is further contended that, the suit is barred by limitation and the claim of the plaintiff is barred by doctrine of resjudicata. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 3. These submissions of the counsel for the appellant are refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and he submits that, the learned trial Court has rightly granted the temporary injunction as the plaintiff is also one of the sharer in the properties so described in the schedule appended to the plaint. It is submitted that if, defendants succeeds in alienating the properties, then the very rights of the plaintiff will be affected. It is submitted that, as the schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of the father of the plaintiff, plaintiff has got a share. It is submitted that, except defendant No.14, the other defendants have not preferred any appeal perhaps conceding the rights of the plaintiff. Thus, supporting the findings of the trial Court, it is prayed to dismiss this appeal. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and on perusal of the records including the impugned order, pleadings in the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 suit, this Court proceeds to consider the legal questions and factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal. 5. The foundational facts of the suit filed by the plaintiff i.e. Bhagyamma - is that, the suit schedule property are the self-acquired properties of her late father Chikkachennappa, who died intestate. She asserts that, she is one of the class-I legal heirs and is thus entitled to a rightful share in the estate left behind by her father. The suit is for partition, possession, declaration and consequential reliefs. The plaintiff also contends that, certain alienations effected by other legal heirs are not binding on her share and accordingly, sought injunctive reliefs pending final adjudication. 6. The learned trial Court, after evaluating the prima facie material and on hearing both the sides, allowed IA.No1 filed Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with 151 CPC, holding that prima facie case was made out by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 the plaintiff and that the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable injury warranted interim protection. 7. The injunction order restrained specific defendants including the appellant from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property. 8. The principle submission of the appellant is that, the claim of the plaintiff is hit by doctrine of resjudicata as the family had earlier entered into a compromise in O.S.No.556/1991, and the subject matter of the present suit is already settled in that earlier suit. However, the trial Court found and rightly so, that the compromise in the earlier suit does not bar the present claim made by the plaintiff. The compromise petition in O.S.No.556/1991, in fact, recognizes the plaintiff's entitlement to a share of compensation from acquisition of certain lands. The appellant has not placed any material to show that, this entitlement so recited in the compromise decree was ever honoured. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 9. It is settled law that, the doctrine of resjudicata under Section 11 of CPC requires a final adjudication between the same parties on the same cause of action. The previous suit in O.S.No.556/1991 was based on different properties and significantly, the plaintiff herein was not a party to that suit. Even if her name was mentioned in the compromise her non-joinder as formal party militates against any conclusive adjudication against her rights. Thus, at this interlocutory stage the plea of resjudicata does not appear to be sustainable. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, the alienations were made in the year 2002 and suit of the plaintiff is barred as she has questioned the same under Section 58 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. However, the question of limitation, especially in the context of undivided Hindu Family where possession and enjoyment are often joint and ambiguous is a mixed question of fact and law. It requires evidence to be adduced and tested during trial. Courts have consistently - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 held that at the stage of considering temporary injunction, the Court must not conclusively determine such issues. 11. The reliance placed by the appellant in the decision in Prakash v. Phulavati, reported in (2016) 2 SCC 36 to negate the plaintiff's claim for succession is misplaced. The trial court rightly relied on Danamma v. Amar, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 343, which clarified that daughters are coparceners by birth and are entitled to equal rights as that of sons, even if the father died prior to the 2000 amendment, provided the suit was pending or filed thereafter. This interpretation is in consonance with the equality principle under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. 12. Further, the contention that, the properties were sold for legal necessities does not absolve the alienators from the obligation of seeking consent or participation of other coparceners or legal heirs. The trial Court noted that, no documentary evidence was produced - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 to establish that legal necessity existed nor that plaintiff had consented to or received any share in the sale proceedings. The burden of proof lies on those who assert legal necessity. 13. The law of injunctions, particularly under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is well settled. The Court must be satisfied that: (1) The plaintiff has prima facie case, (2) The balance of convenience lies in his/her favour. (3) Irreparable injury would be caused if injunction is not granted. 14. The trial Court has examined all these limbs in detail. Prima facie, the plaintiff had shown that she is a legal heir of deceased owner of the properties. The documents filed indicates that the suit properties were never the subject matter of a registered partition deed. Alienations were undertaken by other heirs without involving or notifying the plaintiff. In view of this, the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 plaintiff has established a right that deserves protection till final adjudication. 15. So far as balance of convenience is concerned, it is clearly in favour of the plaintiff, as allowing defendants to alienate the properties during the pendency of the suit would result in multiplicity of proceedings and would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's share, which may become difficult to trace or recover in monetary terms. The hardship of the defendants on the other hand, is minimal as they can always seek liberty to alienate in future subject to outcome of trial. 16. On the question of irreparable injury, it must be emphasized that, in matters of partition, alienation during pendency of suit may result in third party rights, further litigation and dilution of entitlements. The preservation of status-quo is integral to safeguarding the subject matter of the suit. Injunctions are equitable remedies aimed at preserving the sanctity of pending adjudication. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 17. It is also pertinent to reiterate that, granting of temperory injunction does not amount to determination of rights on merits. The trial Court has not decided the issue of title, partition or validity of alienations. It has only exercised discretion to maintain status-quo. Appellant's interference with such discretion is impermissible only if it is shown to be arbitrary, capricious or perverse which is not a case here. 18. The appellant's grievance that, the trial Court failed to appreciate the doctrine of estoppel by conduct also lacks merit. Estoppel is a principle that bars a person from denying what has been previously accepted. But, in the present case, there is no evidence that, the plaintiff ever acquiesced to or ratified the alienations. On the contrary, she has promptly filed suit upon discovery of alienations. Hence, estoppel cannot be inferred. 19. The argument that the plaintiff is using clever drafting to circumvent limitation law or create a false - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 cause of action is speculative and unsubstantiated. It is well recognized that, courts must examine pleadings liberally at the interlocutory stage and cannot reject relief merely because of technical flaws as long as legitimate cause of action is pleaded, the court must allow the matter to proceed. 20. The concept of family settlement, partition by oral agreement and doctrine of blending are often invoked in Hindu law litigation. However, such defences must be backed by cogent evidence, which cannot be assessed at this interlocutory stage. The appellant has not produced any registered partition deed or credible proof of plaintiff's exclusion by agreement. Therefore, the principle of "qui- appropat non-reprobate" - He who accepts cannot reject - is also inapplicable in the absence of any benefit derived by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not been shown to have accepted proceeds or possession pursuant to the 1991 compromise. On the contrary, her exclusion from the 1991 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 compromise decree supports her claim that her rights were overlooked. 21. The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 also supports the trial Court's view. Any transfer of property during the pendency of litigation affecting rights therein is subject to outcome of such litigation. Grant of injunction further fortifies this doctrine and prevents the frustration of judicial proceedings. 22. Lastly, the appeal memorandum does not demonstrate any substantial error in the trial Court's reasoning or exercise of discretion. The impugned order is balanced, well-reasoned and in line with the established legal principles. The appellate court must be slow to interfere with such orders unless they are perverse which is not the case here. 23. In view of the above elaborate discussion and settled legal principles, this Court finds no merit in the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29806 MFA No. 511 of 2019 appeal. The plaintiff has rightly been granted interim protection pending adjudication, balance of convenience and equity demand that the status-quo be preserved to avoid irreparable harm. Resultantly, the appeal fails. Accordingly the following: ORDER (i) The MFA stands dismissed. (ii) The impugned order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the 17th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in I.A.No.1 filed in O.S.No.40/2017 is hereby affirmed with no orders as to costs. (iii) As the suit is of the year 2017, the learned trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit expeditiously with all its promptitude. The parties to the suit shall co-operate for early disposal. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40