- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21108 MFA No. 7739 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7739 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O. SRI. ANJANAPPA, D/O. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/ AT NO.60/2, BHARATH NILAYA, (GANGADHARESHWARA PRASANNA) 8TH CROSS, MARUTHI ROAD, SHAKAMBARI NAGAR, J.P. NAGAR, 1ST PHASE (SARAKKI), BENGALURU-560 078 2. SRI. MANISH B. GAJARIA, S/O. LATE BHARATH R. GAJARIA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.294, 34TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, 7TH BLOCK, BENGALURU - 82 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SWAMY M.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT JAYAMMA K., W/O. LATE T. SHIVARAM, AGED BOUT 85 YEARS 2. SMT. SARASWATHI S., D/O. LATE T. SHIVARAM, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21108 MFA No. 7739 of 2025 3. SMT. RATHNAMALA S., D/O. LATE T. SHIVARAM, AGED BOUT 61 YEARS 4. SRI. PREMKUMAR S., S/O. LATE T. SHIVARAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 5. SRI. SHASHIKIRAN S., S/O. LATE T. SHIVARAM, AGED BOUT 54 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 5 ARE ALL R/AT 18/39, 4TH STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, PETROL BUNK, BENGALURU - 560 079 6. SMT. THAYAKKA, W/O. NARASIMHAIAH, D/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, R/AT NO.62, RAMAKRISHNA MATT ROAD, ULLASOR, BENGALURU (DEFENDANT NO.2 CONVERTED AS PLAINTIFF NO.2 AS PER COURT ORDER) 7. SMT. CHIKKAMMA, W/O. NARASIMHAIAH, D/O. THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, R/AT NO.20, RED COLOUR MASIDE BUILDING, JALAKANTESHWARA NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN SLUM, BENGALURU – 30 8. SMT. KAMALAMMA, W/O. CHANNAPPA, D/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.09, 4TH MAIN, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21108 MFA No. 7739 of 2025 K.R. GARDEN, MURUGESHPALYA, HAL POST, BENGALURU – 19 9. SMT. SORAJAMMA, W/O. TIRUMALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.44, 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, K.M. LAYOUT, G. PALYA, OPP LITTLE CHAMPION PLAYA HOME, BENGALURU – 29 10. SMT. LAKSHMI, D/O. TIRUMALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.44, 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, K. M. LAYOUT, S. G. PALYA, OPP: LITTLE CHAMPION BEACH HOME, BENGALURU – 29 11. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT NO.47, (REAL ESTATE AGENT), 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, RAMAJANEYA NAGAR, CHIKKALSANDRA, BENGALURU – 61 12. SMT. AMAYAMMA, D/O. LATE THIMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, OLD NO.42, 9TH CROSS, NARAYANAPURA, WILSON GARDEN SLUM, BENGALURU – 30 13. SRI. RAVINDRA VAMAN KORE, S/O LATE VAMAN S. KORE, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, R/AT 4 A-B, VILLAGE APARTMENTS, 163/11 VANI VILASA ROAD, BASAVANADUDI, BENGALURU – 04 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21108 MFA No. 7739 of 2025 14. SRI. GANESH, S/O. CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT T. BEGUR, PREACHING HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 15. SMT. SEEMA GAJARIA, W/O. LATE BHARATH R. GARARIA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.403, SHANTHINIKETHAN APARTMENTS, NO.294, 34TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, 7TH BLOCK, BENGALURU – 82 16. GIRISH B. GAJARIA, S/O. LATE BHARATH R. GARARIA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.403, SHANTHINIKETHAN APARTMENTS, NO.294, 34TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, 7TH BLOCK, BENGALURU – 82 17. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NO.30/2, KINI BUILDING, 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009 18. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NELAMANGALA, TUMKUR HIGHWAY, BENGALURU - 560 001 19. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, STATE OF KARNATAKA, “KHANIJA BHAVAN” RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU 20. SRI. NAGARAJU, S/O. LATE MELUGIRIYAPPA @ RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS 21. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, D/O. LATE MELUGIRIYAPPA @ RAJANNA, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21108 MFA No. 7739 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 22. SMT. RATHNAMMA, D/O. LATE MELUGIRIYAPPA @ RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 23. SRI. SRINIVASA R., S/O. LATE MELUGIRIYAPPA @ RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 24. SRI. NARAYANA R., S/O. LATE MELUGIRIYAPPA @ RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 25. SMT. VASANTHA D/O. LATE MELUGIRIYAPPA @ RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 26. SMT. LEELAVATHI, D/O. LATE MELUGIRIYAPPA @ RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 20 TO 26 ARE ALL R/AT NO.700, 15TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU – 54 27. SRI. B. T. SRINIVASA MURTHY, S/O. LATE MUDALATHIMMAIAH T. @ MUDALAGIRITHIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS 28. SRI. RAMESH, S/O. LATE MUDALATHIMMAIAH T. @MUDALAGIRITHIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 29. SRI. SURESH, S/O. LATE MUDALATHIMMAIAH T. @ MUDALAGIRITHIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21108 MFA No. 7739 of 2025 RESPONDENT NO. 27 TO 29 ARE ALL R/AT NO 25/1, 1ST CROSS, AZADNAGARA, CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU - 18 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH .P., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5 SRI. VELLANKI RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R27 TO R29 SRI. B S NATARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R20 TO R26 NOTICE IS NOT ORDERED IN R/O R6 TO R19) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 08.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 23 IN O.S.NO. 123/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., NELAMANGALA, ALLOWING IA NO. 23 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by defendant Nos.1 and 12 challenging the order dated 08.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.23 in O.S.No.123/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, was allowed, restraining defendant Nos.1 and 11 to 13 from - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21108 MFA No. 7739 of 2025 alienating the suit schedule properties bearing Item Nos.4 to 9. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Brief facts: 3. The suit in O.S.No.123/2010 is one for partition and separate possession, wherein the plaintiff’s claim that the suit schedule property are the joint family properties. The defendants contested the suit, contending that the properties are their self-acquired properties and there exists no joint family. 4. During the pendency of the suit, after more than lapse of more than 15 years and at the stage of evidence, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.23 seeking temporary injunction restraining alienation of item Nos.4 to 9 the suit schedule properties. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21108 MFA No. 7739 of 2025 5. The Trial Court, by the impugned order, allowed the application and granted injunction for a period of three months, which has been subsequently extended. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that : i. the application for injunction was filed after an inordinate delay of more than 15 years, when the suit had already progressed to the stage of evidence. ii. the properties in question has already been alienated by defendant No.1 prior to institution of the suit and third party rights have been created. iii. in the absence of subsisting title, no injunction could have been granted restraining alienation. iv. the Trial Court has failed to properly consider the essential ingredient of a prima-facie, balance of convenience and irreparable injury and has mechanically granted injunction. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21108 MFA No. 7739 of 2025 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 sought to justify the impugned order and submits that: i. the plaintiffs have established a prima-facie case regarding their share in the suit schedule property. ii. the order of injunction is only to preserve the properties pending adjudication and does not cause prejudice to the appellants. iii. There is no perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants interference by this Court?” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21108 MFA No. 7739 of 2025 9. The scope of interference in an appeal against an order granting or refusing interim injunction, is limited. The Appellate Court would interfere only when the order suffers from perversity, illegality, or arbitrariness, or non-application of settled principles governing grant of temporary injunction. 10. In the present case, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have made out a prima-facie case, and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs claim a share in the suit schedule property. At the same time, it is also not in dispute that defendant No.1 executed sale deeds in favour of third parties and that the application for injunction was filed at a belated stage. However, regard to the competing claims and nature of the dispute, this Court is of the view that instead of absolute restraint on alienation as ordered by the Trial Court, it would be just and proper to balance the equities, by directing both parties to maintain status-quo. Accordingly, interference - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21108 MFA No. 7739 of 2025 with the impugned order is warranted to the limited extent of modifying the nature of interim relief and accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby allowed in part. ii. The order dated 08.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.23 in O.S.No.123/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala is modified, directing both the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to possession and alienation of the suit schedule properties item Nos.4 to 9, till the disposal of the suit. iii. Considering the suit is of the year 2010, the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21108 MFA No. 7739 of 2025 (6) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23