- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52413 MFA No. 5016 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5016 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. R.LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O LATE. M. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.222, PARAMANNA LAYOUT, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL – 562 123 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NITIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT R. AKKAYAMMA W/O RANGAPPA, D/O LATE.M. RAMAIAH, AGE 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.5736/32, T.B. ROAD, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL -562 123. 2. VENKATESH @ RAJANNA S/O LATE.M. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT KADABAGERE VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 562 162. 3. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52413 MFA No. 5016 of 2025 W/O VENKATESH @ RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA.K.V. W/O NAGARAJ M.G. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NOS. 3 AND 4 ARE R/AT NO.45, 60 FEET ROAD, 7TH BLOCK, SIR M. VISHVESHWARAIAH LAYOUT, MUDDINAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 091. 5. SRI. K.V.YOGANANDA S/O VENKATESH @ RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 6. SMT. BHAGYA D/O VENKATESH @ RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 7. SMT. DIVYA W/O YOGANANDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 5 TO 7 ARE R/AT KADABAGERE VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU- 562162 8. SRI. M.G. CHETHAN KUMAR S/O SMT. LATE. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA AND GOVINDEGOWDA AND GRAND SON OF M. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.34/33, 4TH CROSS, RAVI LAYOUT, JAI MARUTHINAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU- 560 096 9. SMT. BHAVYA M.G D/O LATE. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA AND LATE. GOVINDEGOWDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52413 MFA No. 5016 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT MUPPADIGHATTA VILLAGE, KADANUR POST, MADURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 560 098 10. SMT. INDIRAMMA W/O ANANDA.P.S, D/O LATE.M.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.98, MATHRUSHREE NILAYA, 15 CROSS, SUBASHNAGAR, OPP KEB OFFICE, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL -562123 11. SRI. K.L. ASHOK KUMAR S/O K. LAKSHMINARAYANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT K.R. PALYA VILLAGE, JAKKANAHALLI POST, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT- 562123 12. B.R.RANGAIAH S/O RANGADHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NES BADAVANE, GUDEMARANAHALLI ROAD, MAGADI TOWN, NEAR BALAJI CHITRAMANDIR, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562 159 13. A.R. RANGASWAMY S/O A.G. RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. R/AT NO.135,SHREYAS VIDHYA SAMSTHE, KAMAKSHIPALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 079. 14. SRI. ASHOK KUMAR S/O SUVVALAL, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52413 MFA No. 5016 of 2025 R/AT NO.27, 98TH CROSS ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. 15. SRI. BHANVARLAL S/O LATE. CHANDAN LAL, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.251/8, 9TH CROSS, 15T BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 010. 16. SMT. PRABHA JAIN, W/O SUNIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.581, 63TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. 17. SMT. PRAMEELA DEVI W/O KAILASH CHAND, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.99, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040. 18. SMT. MEETHA JAIN W/O RAMESH CHAND, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.1996, 12TH A CROSS, 15 D MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040. 19. SMT. L. CHANDRIKA W/O R. LAKSHMINARAYANA AND D/O K. LAKSHMINARAYANA R/AT NO.222, PARAMANNA LAYOUT, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT- 562123 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KALYAN R, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE DATED 08.08.2025, NOTICE R2 TO R19 IS DISPENSED WITH; SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R10; SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA.A.N, ADVOCATE FOR R8; SRI. SIDDAPPA.V.D, ADVOCATE FOR R9 ) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52413 MFA No. 5016 of 2025 THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.03.06.2024 ON IA NO.2 AND 3 IN O.S.NO.544/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, ALLOWING IA NO.2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, DISMISSING IA NO.3 FILED U/O.39 RULE 4 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by appellant/defendant No.7 questioning the order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, in O.S.No.544/2024 on I.A.No.II filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and I.A.No.III filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC, thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is allowed restraining the defendant No.7 from making alienation of the suit item Nos.2 to 5 and 9 properties till the disposal of the suit. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition claiming 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. It is stated that the plaintiff is the daughter of Ramaiah. Defendant Nos.1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are the daughters of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52413 MFA No. 5016 of 2025 Ramaiah. Therefore, the plaintiff gets 1/5th share. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. In the suit, the plaintiff filed the application for temporary injunction and that is allowed by the trial Court restraining defendant No.7 from alienating the suit item Nos.2 to 5 and 9 properties. The said application is allowed and against the said order, defendant No.7 is in this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.7 submitted that in this appeal the appellant/defendant No.7 is concerned only with regard to item No.4 property and submitted that item No.4 property is measuring 1 acre 31 guntas and it was converted and layout was formed and if an order of temporary injunction insofar as item No.4 property is granted then defendant No.7 would put into much loss and injury. Therefore, prays to lift the order of temporary injunction insofar as item No.4 property is concerned and submitted that insofar as other items in the schedule property is concerned, an order of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52413 MFA No. 5016 of 2025 temporary injunction be continued. Further submitted that item Nos.3 and 5 were already sold out, therefore, confined the appeal only insofar as item No.4 property is concerned. Hence, prays to allow the appeal permitting defendant No.7 to make alienation insofar as item No.4 property is concerned. 4. Further submitted that defendant No.10 has filed the suit in O.S.No.864/2002, but has not included the suit item No.4 property, therefore, defendant No.10 has given up share in Item No.4. Further submitted that there was partition in the year 2003 between the brothers and Item No.4 property has fallen to the share of defendant No.7. Therefore, when there was partition earlier to amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, therefore, whatever the partition effected prior to appointed date to the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are saved. Further submitted that at the most the plaintiff is entitled for notional partition that comes to 1/15th share only, but not 1/5th. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52413 MFA No. 5016 of 2025 Therefore, submitted that for claiming 1/15th share, halting the sale transaction to the entire suit property is not correct. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.7 has filed a Memo stating that the appellant undertakes to reserve 14 sites bearing Site Nos.13, 22 and 32 to 35 so as to protect the right of share of plaintiff and defendant No.10. The said memo is placed on record. 6. The counsel for the defendant No.8 submitted that the defendant No.8 is having right of share in the suit properties, therefore protection of share is needed in the line with the plaintiff and defendant No.10. For this, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he will reserve three more sites namely, Site Nos.29, 30 and 31. Therefore, for the plaintiff, defendant Nos.8 and 10 the above stated sites are reserved and the order of temporary injunction is continued so far as the above sites are concerned restraining the defendant No.7 from making alienation or creating charge whatsoever nature so far as - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52413 MFA No. 5016 of 2025 the sites above stated in above Item No.4 property is concerned. So far as other sites in Item No.4 property, the defendant No.7 is at liberty to sell the same. It is also submitted that three sites are reserved to the right of share of defendant No.8 as above stated. Further the appellant/defendant No.7 has undertaken not to alienate other schedule properties except suit Item Nos.2, 5 and 9. Therefore, the temporary injunction granted by the trial court shall continue except other sites in Item No.4. 7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. The trial court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible within a period of one year and both parties shall cooperate with the trial court for speedy disposal of the suit. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DR List No.:1 Sl.No.: 49 Para 1 to 4 –PB Para 5 to 7 - DR