- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15943 MFA No. 527 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 527 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: MRS M PUSHPAVATHI W/O SRI VASUDEVA, D/O SRI H. MUNIKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOURT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.63, 4TH CROSS, CLASSIC PARADISE LAYOUT, BEGUR ROAD, BEGUR, BENGALURU. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.H.MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O HOSALAPPA (DIED DURING PENDING CASE) LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE (LR) IS SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE SRI.H.MUNIKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.218, LAKSHMI NILAYA, WHITE FIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066. 2. SMT. PADMA W/O SRI JAYARAM D/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.218, LAKSHMI NILAYA, WHITE FIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15943 MFA No. 527 of 2025 3. SRI M NARAYANAMURTHY S/O SRI. H.MUNIKRISHNAPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.218, LAKSHMI NILAYA, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066. 4. SRI. M. RAMAMURTHY S/O SRI. H.MUNIKRISHNAPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.218, LAKSHMI NILAYA, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066. 5. SRI. MURALI.M S/O SRI. H.MUNIKRISHNAPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.218, LAKSHMI NILAYA, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU- 560 066. 6. M/S SAI RAGHAVENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS AND DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS PERMANENT ADDRESS GROUND FLOOR, KALPAVRUKSHA ESTATES, H.NO.3-6-475/3/1 HIMYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD- 500029, ANDRAPRADESH. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.M.JANARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2024 PASSED ON I.A. AND IA.NO.1 IN OS.NO.253/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ALLOWING THE IA. FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15943 MFA No. 527 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff calling in question the correctness of the common order dated 14.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC filed by the plaintiff and I.A under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC filed by defendant Nos.3 to 6 in O.S.No.253/2022 on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bengaluru Rural District (for short 'the trial Court'), wherein the application filed by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction came to be dismissed and the application filed by defendant Nos.3 to 5 for vacating the interim order came to be allowed. Brief facts: 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.253/2022 seeking partition and separate possession of the suit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15943 MFA No. 527 of 2025 schedule properties contending that the same was a joint family ancestral properties originally belonging to the late Hosalappa. It is the case of the plaintiff that being the daughter of late H.Munikrishnappa, she is a coparcener entitled to an equal share in the suit schedule properties. It is further contended that the release deed dated 14.05.2015 said to have been executed by her was obtained fraudulently when she was under severe depression and without understanding the contents of the document. It is stated that the defendants have entered into a joint development agreement with respondent No.6 and are attempting to alienate the properties as well as the land acquisition compensation thereby affecting her lawful share. An application i.e., I.A.No.1 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 seeking to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties. Initially an ex-parte interim injunction was granted which was subsequently vacated by the impugned order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15943 MFA No. 527 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the appellant is a coparcener by birth under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. That the release deed dated 14.05.2015 is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation and lack of free consent, as the appellant was under the mental incapacity and medication at that relevant point of time. It is submitted that the circumstances surrounding the execution of the release deed and the joint development agreement clearly indicate dishonest intention and collusion between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 6. It is further contended that the appellant was not a party to the joint development agreement and no consideration was paid to her thereby excluding her share unlawfully. It is contended that the defendants are attempting to create third party rights and appropriate compensation, which would cause irreparable injury to the appellant and that the trial Court has failed to consider that there existence of a prima-facie case, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15943 MFA No. 527 of 2025 balance of convenience and irreparable injury, and erroneously vacated the interim injunction. 4. The trial Court upon consideration of the material placed on record held that the plaintiff has not established a prima-facie case, balance of convenience in his favour and no irreparable injury will be caused if injunction is refused and that the defendants have made out a ground under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC to vacate the interim order. 5. This Court has carefully perused the materials placed on record and the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 6. The law is well settled that the person seeking for a grant of injunction has to satisfy the strict three-pong test namely prima-facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience. An injunction is an equitable relief and 'cannot seek by way of a right to it, but has to earn it by proving three things' as held by the Apex Court in the case - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15943 MFA No. 527 of 2025 of DALPAT KUMAR VS. PRAHALAD SINGH1 (DALPAT KUMAR), wherein the Apex Court has held the golden rules of injunction and that the triple test condition must exist before granting an injunction, if one is missing the injunction should be denied. The Apex Court in the case of WANDER LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. ANTOX INDIA P. LTD.,2 (WANDER LIMITED) has held that the Appellate Court will not interfere with the discretion of the trial Court and substitute its own discretion unless the order of the trial Court is found being suffering from arbitrariness or perversity and that the trial Court had ignored the settled principles of law, triple test for injunction just because the Appellate Court could have reached a different conclusion, does not mean it should overturn the trial Court's order provided the trial Court's view was reasonably possible. 7. Bearing in mind the settled proposition of law, the entire material including the order of the trial Court is perused. The relationship between the appellant as a 1 1992(1) SCC 719 2 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15943 MFA No. 527 of 2025 daughter of late H.Munikrishnappa is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant/plaintiff had executed a registered release deed dated 14.05.2015 relinquishing her rights in respect of the suit schedule properties. The said document being a registered document carries a presumption of validity in law unless it is set aside in an appropriate proceeding. 8. Though the appellant contends that the release deed was obtained by fraud and when she was under the mental incapacity, such contentions involve a disputed question of fact, which require full-fledged trial and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of considering an application for temporary injunction. 9. The trial Court rightly observed that the appellant has admitted the execution of document and in the absence of a prima-facie material to invalidate the same at this stage, the claim of subsisting right over the properties becomes doubtful. The material placed on record further - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15943 MFA No. 527 of 2025 discloses that the defendants have entered into a joint development agreement and the development activities are in progress. Interference at this stage would cause serious prejudice to the defendants and the third parties. The principles governing temporary injunction namely prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury has been considered by the trial Court and the findings recorded do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting any interference. 10. Accordingly, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order and pass the following: ORDER i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed. ii) It is needless to observe that any findings recorded by the trial Court while considering I.A.No.1 filed under Order - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15943 MFA No. 527 of 2025 XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and the observations made by this Court in the present appeal shall not influence the trial Court while deciding the suit on merits which shall be considered independently. iii) The trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18