- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49425 MFA No. 8028 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8028 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. S.C.RAMESH S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA S.R AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.9, PARVATHIPURA ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 164 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUMARI HARSHINI C D/O LATE CHANDRAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, 2. SRUJAN GOWDA C S/O LATE CHANDRAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, 3. SMT PRATHIBA H B W/O LATE CHANDRAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.86, HAROHALLI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 164 Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49425 MFA No. 8028 of 2025 4. H M LAKSHMINARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE D R MADAVARAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R.AT DODDATHATTAMANGALA VILLAGE, YELUR POST, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 164 5. SR. M VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT MUDDANAYANAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDULURU POST, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562164 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANDA.H.C., ADVCOATE FOR C/R1 & R2 IN CP 21426/25) THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 11.09.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.87/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant No.4 questioning the order passed on IA.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49425 MFA No. 8028 of 2025 O.S.No.87/2024 by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Davanagere, thereby, the application filed by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction is allowed. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession by claiming 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property. It is the pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the children of defendant No.1 and one late Chandrakumar and the said Chandrakumar died on 20.07.2014. It is stated that the suit schedule properties and other properties are ancestral properties and therefore, after the demise of the said Chandrakumar, defendant No.1 and his brothers had partitioned the joint family properties under the Panchayath Parikath dated 26.11.2014. In the said partition, the suit property had been allotted to the share of Chandrakumar who is the husband of defendant No.1 and father of the plaintiffs. 3. It is stated that, thereafter, defendant No.1 had sold the suit property to defendant No.2 on 13.12.2019 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49425 MFA No. 8028 of 2025 through the registered sale deed without having family and legal necessity to sell the land contrary to the interest of the plaintiffs who were minors at that time. Defendant No.2 in turn sold the property to defendant No.3 and defendant No.3 sold the same to defendant No.4 through the registered sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition for claiming share in the suit property. 4. It is the case of defendant No.4 that defendant No.1 for the family and legal necessities had sold the property in favour of defendant No.2. Since at that time late Chandrakumar died, therefore, they were struggling for livelihood, hence, were constrained to sell the property. Therefore, sold the property to defendant No.2 and therefore, the sale effected by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2 is for family and legal necessities and defendant No.1 being kartha of the family has taken decision to alienate the suit property. Therefore, defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the bonafide passengers. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49425 MFA No. 8028 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy V., Vs., Manjunath and Another1 and relied on paragraph No.8 and it is submitted that even though kartha for family and legal necessities might have alienated the property. Therefore, it is contended that the alienation made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is for bonafide reasons for livelihood of the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ family. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the alienation made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is contrary to Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) and by placing reliance on the observation made at paragraph No.13 submitted that defendant No.1-mother had not obtained permission of the Court to make alienation of the 1 AIR 2022 SC 65 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49425 MFA No. 8028 of 2025 property on behalf of minor children also. Therefore, the sale effected by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on the plaintiffs. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the materials on record, the following points arise for consideration: i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant No.4 demonstrates that the plaintiffs have not made out prima facie case so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant No.4 demonstrates that the plaintiffs do not have balance of convenience so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? iii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant No.4 demonstrates that, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiffs will not suffer any injury and loss? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49425 MFA No. 8028 of 2025 iv. Whether the order of the trial Court requires interference or not? 8. Certain facts are not disputed that Chandrakumar who is the husband of defendant No.1 and father of plaintiffs died on 20.07.2014. It is the pleading in the plaint that the properties were ancestral properties and therefore, after the death of Chandrakumar, his brothers and defendant No.1 have got partitioned the property under the Panchayath Parikath dated 26.11.2014. Therefore, the suit property has fallen to the share of Chandrakumar. Accordingly, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 being successors have inherited the suit schedule property. It is also not disputed that defendant No.1 has sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.2 through the registered sale deed dated 13.12.2019 during minority of the plaintiffs. Section 8 of the Act reads as follows: “8. Powers of natural guardian.— (1)The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49425 MFA No. 8028 of 2025 benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor’s estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2)The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,— (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority. (3) Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or by any person claiming under him. (4) No court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub- section (2) except in the case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor. (5) The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), shall apply to and in respect of an application for obtaining permission of the court under sub-section (2) in all respects as if it were an application for obtaining the permission of the court under section 29 of that Act, and in particular— (a) proceedings in connection with the application shall be deemed to be proceedings under that Act within the meaning of section 4A thereof; (b) the court shall observe the procedure and have the powers specified in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 31 of that Act; and (c) an appeal shall lie from an order of the court refusing permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-section (2) of this section to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of that court. (6) In this section “court” means the city civil court or a district court or a court empowered under section 4A of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49425 MFA No. 8028 of 2025 within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property in respect of which the application is made is situate, and where the immovable property is situate within the jurisdiction of more than one such court, means the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate.” 9. Admittedly, in the present case, defendant No.1 has not obtained the permission of the Court for alienating the suit property on behalf of the plaintiffs who were minors at that point of time. The decision in Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy’s case the facts are that the father without signature of the son who was the appellant and the suit was decreed after contest and ultimately the Hon’ble Supreme Court has restored the decree of specific performance. 10. In this context, on the basis of the evidence on record, it was observed regarding right of karth to make alienation, but in the present case, the question still under consideration is regarding whether defendant No.1 was having legal necessities to sale the land and it is triable issue before the trial Court. Therefore, under this factual - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49425 MFA No. 8028 of 2025 matrix the said citation is not applicable to the present case at this stage. In the present case, in the suit, whether the alienation of the suit property on 13.02.2019 by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is yet to be established. 11. Furthermore, there was no legal compliance of Section 8 of the Act. Defendant No.1 being the mother in the contrary to Section 8 of the Act, though the plaintiffs were minors at that time, without obtaining permission of the Court to sell the land has sold the property in favour of defendant No.2. Therefore, these are to the triable issue before the trial Court. Hence, the plaintiffs have made prima facie case and balance of convenience. 12. If the suit property is alienated, then the plaintiffs would suffer injury and loss. Therefore, it is pleaded to protect the interest of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, answered point Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49425 MFA No. 8028 of 2025 negative. Therefore, there is no illegality and perversity found in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER (I) The appeal is dismissed. (II) The order passed on IA.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.87/2024 by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Davanagere, is hereby confirmed. (III) Whatever observation made above shall not be construed on the merits of the case. The trial Court shall independently assess the evidence on record to be adduced in the trial and dispose of the suit as early as possible. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27