- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53242 MFA No. 6953 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6953 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE DODDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NEAR SHIVA TEMPLE, MARVETHOPU ROAD, SHEEGEHALLI, KANNAMANGALA POST, BENGALURU - 560 067. 2. SRI. KEMPANNA S/O LATE DODDAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. 180, NEAR HONEY WELL, SHEEGEHALLI, KANNAMANGALA POST, BENGALURU - 560 067. 3. SRI. PADMANABAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE DODDAPPA, R/AT NEAR KRISHNA MEDICAL SHEEGEHALLI, KANNAMANGALA POST, BENGALURU - 560 067. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.R. RAJGOPAL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DAYANANDA K.G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. ANIL KUMAR S/O NANJAPPA @ SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53242 MFA No. 6953 of 2025 2. SRI. RANJITH KUMAR S/O NANJAPPA @ SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT SHEEGEHALLI VILLAGE, KANNAMANGALA POST, BIDARAHALLI POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 067. 3. SMT. RUKMINIYAMMA 2ND WIFE OF LATE DODDAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 4. SRI. NANJAPPA @ SRINIVAS S/O LATE DODDAPPA AND SMT. RUKMIIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 5. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O NANJAPPA @ SRINIVAS AND SUSHEELAMMA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT SHEEGEHALLI, KANNAMANGALA POST, BIDARAHALLI POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH H, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO. 1842/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, 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 ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53242 MFA No. 6953 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the defendant Nos.4 to 6 questioning the order dated 01.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.1842/2025 by the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court has allowed the application restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property in any manner till disposal of the suit. 2. The plaintiffs have filed suit for partition and separate possession of claiming 1/24th share each in the suit schedule properties by claiming that there is a Hindu Undivided Family and there is no earlier partition of the suit schedule properties and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties. 3. Upon the application - I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the Trial Court has allowed the application thereby granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53242 MFA No. 6953 of 2025 from making alienation of the suit schedule properties. The trial Court has assigned the reasons that earlier partition deed and execution of relinquishment deed are all the matter for trial. Therefore, the trial Court has allowed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos.4 to 6 have filed the present appeal. 4. Sri.M.R.Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/defendant Nos.4 to 6 submitted that the plaintiffs have suppressed the materials fact that there was an earlier partition in the family and there is no joint family status as it was severed and it is suppressed by the plaintiffs. Also, the plaintiffs' father has executed the registered relinquishment deed which has suppressed in the plaint. Therefore, due to such suppressed material facts, disentitled the plaintiffs from claiming equitable relief of injunction. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal. He places reliance on the judgment of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53242 MFA No. 6953 of 2025 this Court in the case of Syed Yusuf & another Vs. Syed Noorulla & others1. 5. Having heard the arguments from both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendants demonstrate that the plaintiffs have not made out prima facie case so as not to grant an order of temporary injunction? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendants demonstrate that the plaintiffs have not made out balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court so as not to grant an order of temporary injunction? (iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendants demonstrate that the plaintiffs would not suffer any irreparable loss or injury, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted? 1 2017 (3) AKR 4 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53242 MFA No. 6953 of 2025 (iv) Whether, the order passed by the trial Court requires interference by this Court? 6. The plaintiffs by pleading in the plaint that the schedule properties are joint family and ancestral properties and there is no division previously in the family and therefore, prays to 1/24th share in the suit schedule properties. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants / defendant Nos.4 to 6 submitted that there was earlier partition in the family and has produced documents to the Court and as per those documents, there was earlier partition on 10.02.1982 and when this being the fact, the plaintiffs have not stated regarding the previous partition in the family. Therefore, the plaintiffs have suppressed the material fact that there was earlier partition. Even the plaintiffs would have pleaded if previous partition was inequitable. But, there is no such pleading in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs have totally suppressed the fact of previous - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53242 MFA No. 6953 of 2025 partition in the plaint and this suppressed fact disentitles the plaintiffs to claim equitable relief. 8. Further, the father of the plaintiffs has executed registered Relinquishment Deed on 30.08.2011 in respect of the suit property. but this also he suppressed in the plaint. Therefore, when there is suppression of facts, the plaintiffs will not be entitled for the equitable relief of injunction. A party who claims equitable relief of injunction shall have to act with equity by approaching the Court with clean hands, otherwise the plaintiffs will not be entitled for equitable relief of injunction. Therefore, the observations made by the trial Court is not correct. 9. The trial Court has assigned reasons that the previous partition and execution of registered Relinquishment Deed are the matter of trial. But when the plaintiffs have not at all pleaded in the plaint regarding the previous partition in the family and execution of the Relinquishment Deed, there is no question of plaintiffs either to prove or disprove the previous partition. It is not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53242 MFA No. 6953 of 2025 the case of the plaintiffs that they did not know the previous partition and their father has executed the Relinquishment Deed. But knowing fully well that these aspects, the plaintiffs have suppressed the facts in the plaint. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for equitable relief of injunction. Therefore, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the materials correctly. Hence, it amounts to perversity. Accordingly, my answer to point Nos. 1 to 4 is in the affirmative. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 01.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.1842/2025 by the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is hereby set-aside. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12