- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26408 MFA No. 1559 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1559 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BHADRAIAH S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2. SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.1 & 2 ARE R/O UDDEHOSAKERE VILLAGE NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 222 3. SMT. BHARATHAMMA D/O LATE DODDAIAH W/O SURSH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O HULIGERE VILLAGE YADIYUR HOBLI, KUNGIAL TQ TUMKURU DIST.-572 130 4. SMT. ASHA D/O LATE DODDAIAH W/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26408 MFA No. 1559 of 2025 R/O CHIKKATOTTLURKERE VILLAGE KORA HOBLI TUMAKURU TQ AND DIST.-572 222 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MALLAPPA @ MALLAIAH S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O UDDEHOSAKERE VILLAGE NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TQ TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 222 2. SMT. MALLAMMA W/O HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O HARIHARAPURA DODDERI HOBLI DABBEGHATTA POST MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PIN-572 103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISHNU BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.22.02.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.260/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26408 MFA No. 1559 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the arguments of both the side at some length. Respondent no.1 is present before this Court. 2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 22.02.2025 passed in OS No. 260/2024 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi rejecting IA No. 1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any encumbrance over the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 is fair enough to submit that, at present, the respondent no. 1 has no idea or intention to alienate the suit schedule property. However, respondent no.1 wants to dig a well, therefore, for the purpose of meeting the expenses of digging well, he has to raise a loan by mortgaging the scheduled property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26408 MFA No. 1559 of 2025 4. As it is a partition suit filed by the plaintiffs against defendants alleging, that the suit schedule property is a joint family property, now the plaintiff is apprehending alienation and encumbering the suit schedule property. In the given fact of the case, if some order is passed with regard to non - alienation and creating charge of the property by modifying the same at the risk of respondent no.1, it would meet the ends of justice. 5. Further, the rights of the parties have to be decided with regard to the status of the properties in the original suit in OS No. 260/2024 in a full fledged trial. Hence, the following order; The undertaking given by respondent no. 1 that he is not going to alienate the property is taken on record and respondent no.1 is permitted to create charge over the property towards raising loan for digging a well if required, and this creation of charge is, at the risk of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26408 MFA No. 1559 of 2025 respondent. This order will be in force till disposal of the suit. Further, both the parties shall co-operate with the trial for early disposal of the suit. Further, the plaintiffs are directed not to cause any interference/obstruction in any manner in respect of suit schedule property in possession of defendants. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. No cost. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24