- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14514 MFA No. 9259 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9259 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. AVALAPPA S/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA AND LATE MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: BETTENAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT -562 114. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B S JEEVAN KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NARASIMHAPPA S/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA AND LATE MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 2. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O.LATE GOVINDAPPA AND LATE MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 3. SMT. MAMATHA D/O.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14514 MFA No. 9259 of 2025 4. SMT. SHOBHA D/O.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE ALL RESIDING AT BETTENAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT -562 114. 5. SMT. VARALAKSHMI D/O AVALAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT POLANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. 6. MANJUNATHA S/O.AVALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 7. SMT. MADDURAMMA D/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AND LATE MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.6 & 7 ARE ALL RESIDING AT BETTENAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.02.01.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.487/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT 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 ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14514 MFA No. 9259 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present miscellaneous first appeal is preferred by appellants/defendant Nos.4 and 5 assailing the order dated 02.01.2023 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.487/2022 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Devanahalli (for short 'the trial Court'), whereby the trial Court has allowed I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and dismissed I.A.No.2 filed by defendant Nos.4 and 5 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in respect of the written statement schedule properties. Brief facts: 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.487/2022 seeking partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties and for declaration that the Will dated 18.09.2013 is not binding upon the plaintiff. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14514 MFA No. 9259 of 2025 3. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 seeking injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC restraining the defendants from alienating Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. 4. The defendants filed their written statement and counter claim asserting absolute ownership over Item No.1 of the suit schedule property based on the registered Will dated 18.09.2013 and seeking partition in respect of Item No.2 and the written statement schedule properties, namely Item Nos.3 and 4. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 also filed I.A.No.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking injunction against the plaintiff in respect of the written statement schedule properties. 5. The trial Court, upon consideration of the entire materials placed on the record, allowed I.A.No.1 and restrained defendant Nos.1 to 8 from alienating or creating any third party rights in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties and dismissed I.A.No.2 filed by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14514 MFA No. 9259 of 2025 defendant Nos.4 and 5. Aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.4 and 5 are before this Court in this appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the Will dated 18.09.2013 relied upon by the appellants is a registered, valid and probated. The plaintiff though a family member did not oppose the probate proceedings. It is submitted that pursuant to the Will, the appellants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not produced any material to establish possession. Further, it is contended that the Trial Court has taken inconsistent views: i. Relied on the Will to grant injunction; ii. Ignored the same while rejecting defendant’s application. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14514 MFA No. 9259 of 2025 8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made and perused the materials placed on record. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality warranting any interference?” 9. It is also necessary to state that the present appeal is filed with the delay of 952 days. The explanation offered for condonation of delay which is of more than three years is not satisfactory. The injunction order has been granted in the year 2023 and has been operating against the defendants. 10. It is not in dispute that defendant Nos.4 and 5 claim right, title and interest over Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties based on a registered Will, which according to them has been probated in P & S.C.No.15011/2011 on 31.08.2021. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.487/2022 seeking partition and separate possession in the year 2022. The defendants filed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14514 MFA No. 9259 of 2025 their written statement and in addition, sought to claim right over the two properties standing in the name of the plaintiff, contending that they are entitled for 1/4th share therein. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 by way of an injunction sought for non-alienation in respect of Item No.1 of the written statement schedule properties. The trial Court on appreciation of the materials has held that there exits a prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff, balance of convenience lies in preserving the properties and injury would be caused, if alienation is not restrained. The Trial Court also found that the defendants failed to establish a prima-facie case of injunction in respect of their application. There was eminent threat justifying injunction in their favour. 11. The dispute pertains to title and validity of the Will, which requires trial. At the interlocutory stage, preservation of property is paramount. The Trial Court has exercised its discretion based on the settled principles governing injunction. It is well settled law that an - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14514 MFA No. 9259 of 2025 injunction is not a right, but a discretionary relief and the Court must be satisfied of three things: i. Prima-facie case; ii. Balance of convenience and iii. Irreparable loss. 12. The Trial Court has considered all these aspects and perusal of the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. No grounds have been made for entertaining the appeal either on the ground of delay or on merits. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed. Consequently, I.A. No.1/2026 is also dismissed. ii) The suit is of the year 2022 and it is at the stage of framing of issues. It is needless to say that the trial Court shall dispose of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14514 MFA No. 9259 of 2025 suit as expeditiously as possible, independently and without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court or by the Trial Court while considering the interlocutory applications. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17