- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43825 WP No. 32588 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 32588 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI G. R. ANANTH PRASAD S/O. LATE G.R. RANGASWAMAIAH & LATE RANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NO.119, 6TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN SARASWATHIPURAM CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE CITY, MYSORE-570 005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVINDRA V. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. G. R. ARYAMBHA D/O. LATE G.R.RANGASWAMAIAH W/O. C.P. SIDDAGANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O. NO.249, 7TH MAIN ROAD BCC LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE CHANDRA LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 040. 2. SMT. G.R. BHAGYALAKSHMI D/O. LATE G.R. RANGASWAIAH W/O. T.G. SREENIVASAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O. NO.103, SREE RANA ORCHARD ROAD BALAMURI MAHAGANAPATHI ROAD NEAR G.K.V.K. LAYOUT, JAKKUR, BANGALORE-560 069. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43825 WP No. 32588 of 2025 3. SMT. G.R. SAVITHRI D/O. LATE G.R. RANGASWAIAH W/O. NAGARAJ J. AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O.NO.253, 7TH MAIN ROAD BCC LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 040. 4. SMT. G.R. PRATHIBHA D/O. LATE G.R.RANGASWAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O. NO.119, 10TH MAIN ROAD SARASWATHI PURAM, MYSORE-09. 5. SMT. G.R. JANAKI D/O. LATE G.R. RAANGASWAIAH W/O. SHREENIVASAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O. NO.249, 7TH MAIN ROAD BCC LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 040. 6. SMT. G.R.VATHSALA D/O. LATE G.R. RANGASWAIAH W/O. VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O. NO.62, 1ST MAIN ROAD K.G.S. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 040. 7. SMT. LEELAKUMARI D/O. LATE K. LAKSHMINARAYANA GOWDA W/O. ERE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.50, NEAR SUNRISE SCHOOL NELAMANGALA-562 123. 8. SMT. K.L. JYOTHI, D/O. LATE K. LAKSHMINARAYANA GOWDA W/O. B.N. RAMACHANDRA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43825 WP No. 32588 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2314/A/1681A BEHIND BESCOM OFFICE SUBHAS NAGAR, NELAMANGALA- 562 123. 9. SMT. SANDHYA L. D/O. LATE K. LAKSHMINARAYANA GOWDA W/O. RANGASWAMY S.K. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8 SANKRUTHI NILAYA 6TH CROSS, SUBASH NAGAR NELAMANGALA - 562 123. 10. SRI ASHWATHANARAYANA GOWDA S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH C. AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.6191 UNIVERSITY DRIVE DEARBORN HEIGHTS DETROIT CITY MICHIGAN- 48195. USA 11. SMT. CHANDIRK L. D/O. LATE K. LAKSHMINARAYANA GOWDA W/O. LAKSHMINARAYAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.222, (OLD NO.4833) PARAMANA LAYOUT NELAMANGALA TALUK- 562 123. 12. SRI K.L. ASHOK KUMAR S/O. LATE K. LAKSHMINARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT KRISHNARAJA PALYA JAKANAHALLI POST THYAMAGOUNDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK- 562 123. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43825 WP No. 32588 of 2025 13. SMT. SAVITHA K.L. D/O. LATE K. LAKSHMINARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT 7137/1A GAJARIAI LAYOUT, M.G. ROAD NELAMANGALA TALUK- 562 123. 14. SRI KESHAVAMURTHY S/O. LATE C. KERMPAIAH AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.300, 1ST MAIN ROAD HESARAGATTA ROAD MEI LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA BENGALURU-560 073. 15. SRI SRINIVASA K. S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT K.R.PLAYA JAKANAHALLI POST THYAMAGOUNDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 123. 16. SRI KRISHNE GOWDA S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT K.R. PLAYA JAKANAHALLI POST THYAMAGOUNDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK- 562 123. 17. SMT. KEMPAMMA D/O. KEMPAIAH W/O. LATE A. LINGAPPA AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO. 696 11TH CROSS, M.C. LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU- 560 040. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43825 WP No. 32588 of 2025 18. SMT. JAYAMMA D/O. LATE KEMPAIAH W/O. LATE B. GANGAIAH MAJOR, RESIDING AT HARI NIAVASA INDIRA NAGAR EXTENSION NELAMANGALA TOWN NELAMANGALA- 562 123. 19. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O. G. VENKATESH D/O. LATE KEMPAIAH AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT KANASAVADI VILLAGE MADURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK DODDABALLAPURA- 561 203. 20. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA D/O. SIDDALINGAPPA & NARASAMMA W/O. RAJASHEKAR AGE MAJOR BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TQ. BANGALORE RURAL DIST.-561 213. 21. SMT. SATHYABHAMA D/O. SIDDALINGAPPA & NARASAMMA R/O. K.R. PALYA, JAKKANAHALLI POST THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TQ. BANGALORE RURAL DIST.-561 213. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.10.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1078/2025 BY II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NELAMANGALA (ANNEXURE-C) ON IA NO.1 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE APPLICATION (ANNEXURE-B) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43825 WP No. 32588 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking following reliefs: "Wherefore the Petitioners respectfully prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to A. Set aside the impugned order dated: 15.10.2025 passed in O.S.No.1078/2025 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, at Nelamangala (ANNEXURE-C), on IA No.1 filed by the Petitioner under order 39 rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 of civil procedure code read, and further be pleased to allow the said application by granting the relief as sought for in the Application (ANNEXURE-B), in the interest of justice and equity. B. To grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43825 WP No. 32588 of 2025 3. Parties to the petition shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents-defendants, as the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court prior to the service of summons being served to the respondents-defendants before the trial Court. 5. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1078/2025 for the relief of partition and separate possession against the defendants. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an ad interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating/conveying/ encumbering/creating any third party interest over the suit schedule "A" and "B" properties till disposal of the suit. 6. It is stated that the plaintiff is the son of Late Rangamma, who was the daughter of Late C.Kempaiah, who was the propositus of the Hindu - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43825 WP No. 32588 of 2025 Undivided Family of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are the daughters of Late Rangamma, who were sisters of the plaintiff, defendant No.10 is the son of Late C.Kempaiah, who is the brother of the plaintiff's mother, defendant Nos.7, 8, 9, 11 to 13 are the son and the daughters of one Late K.Lakshminarayana Gowda, who is also the brother of plaintiff's mother, defendant Nos.14 to 16 are the sons and defendant Nos.17 to 19 are the daughters of one Late C.Kempaiah and defendant Nos.20 and 21 are the daughters of one Late Narasamma, wife of Siddalingappa and the daughter of C.Kempaiah. 7. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff that after the death of Late C.Kempaiah, the revenue in respect of suit schedule "A" property was entered in the joint names of K.Ashwathnarayana Gowda, who is defendant No.10, the father of Defendant Nos.7 to 9 and 11 to 13 i.e., Late K. Lakshminarayana Gowda, the father of defendant Nos.17 and 18, defendant Nos.14, 15 and 16, who were - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43825 WP No. 32588 of 2025 maintaining the entire family being elders of the Hindu Undivided Family. 8. It is further contended that the plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff has produced several documents before the trial Court with regard to RTC and other records to prove the relationship and the joint status of the members of the joint family and the properties being the joint family properties of the plaintiff as well as the defendants. When this being the state of affairs, the defendants have been making hectic efforts to change the katha of suit schedule "A" and "B" properties by approaching revenue Authorities and also the mutation, thereby depriving the plaintiff of his valuable right. 9. It is the claim of the plaintiff that he is entitled to the legitimate share in the joint family properties along with the defendants, as they are the joint family members and the properties have not been alienated, but the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43825 WP No. 32588 of 2025 defendants are making hectic efforts behind the back of the plaintiff to alienate the properties and if the alienation is permitted, it would result in multiplicity and delay in proceedings. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC before the trial Court for an ad interim order of temporary injunction directing the defendants not to alienate/create any third party interest over the suit schedule properties till disposal of the suit. The trial Court, not being satisfied with the submissions and the contentions put forth by learned counsel for plaintiff, rejected the same and issued suit summons and emergent notice on IA.No.1 to the defendants. 10. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court. 11. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, in the suit for partition seeking a direction to the defendants not to alienate the suit - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43825 WP No. 32588 of 2025 schedule properties till disposal of the suit comes with the obligation of the trial Court to decide the same based on the documents produced by the plaintiff. As there are joint family properties purchased under joint names along with the propositus, the plaintiff as well as the defendants may be entitled to legitimate share of the properties and if the alienation happens during the pendency of the suit, it would create multiplicity of proceedings. 12. While considering the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the trial Court has to look into three necessary aspects. If an injunction is not granted, the damage that would be caused to the person and property; the alienation that would be made, if any, and the effect that would have on the plaintiff and the suit proceedings, so also, the threat of alienation and the actual alienation, if any, are made, it would create multiplicity of proceedings and delay in the issuance of notice, it would further aggravate the issue and may lead to alienation of the properties. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43825 WP No. 32588 of 2025 13. Under the circumstances, the trial Court, having not seen all these aspects, has issued summons on IA.No.1 and the suit, which is not correct. The trial Court ought to have granted an injunction not to alienate and proceeded further to hear the defendants on their appearance and if valid ground is made out by the defendants, it could have vacated the interim order if any. Therefore, the point would be that if alienation is made, the plaintiff is put to irreparable injury and hardship and it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. 14. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is disposed of; ii. An ad interim temporary injunction is granted restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule "A" and "B" properties, till next date of hearing; iii. The respondents-defendants are at liberty to file objections to the said application; iv. The trial Court shall deal with the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43825 WP No. 32588 of 2025 independently without being influenced by the orders passed herein today, as this order is passed solely for the purpose of granting an ad interim temporary injunction; v. After the appearance of the respondents- defendants and perusal of the materials, the trial Court may take any view in accordance with law without being influenced by the order passed today by this Court; vi. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. vii. The petitioner-plaintiff to comply the order under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13