- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24039 MFA No. 8948 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8948 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. RUDRESHAIAH .P S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S. V..R FACILITIES AND SERVICES, 2. SMT. VIMOCHANA B.N. W/O RUDRESHAIAH .P AGED 56 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.681, 4TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS, K.G. ROAD, BHEL LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE EXTENSION, PATTANAGERE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE-560 098. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANIKAKSHIRSA D/O JATIN R. GANGADKAR AND DEEKSHITHA M.H. AGED 2 YEARS REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN/ MOTHER DEEKSHITHA M.H. R/AT NO.16, KESARI NANDANA, 7TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS, JNANAJYOTHI NAGARA, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24039 MFA No. 8948 of 2025 ULLALA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-560 056. 2. JATIN R. GANGADKAR S/O P. RUDRESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT #681, 4TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS, K.G. ROAD, BHEL LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE EXTENSION, PATTANAGERE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-560 098. 3. KUMARI VEDIKA SREE LAKSHMI .R D/O RUDRESHAIAH .P AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT #681, 4TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS, K.G. ROAD, BHEL LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE EXTENSION, PATTANAGERE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE-560 098. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BASAVARAJU P., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.8659/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-25), ALLOWING I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24039 MFA No. 8948 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is directed against the order dated 16.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.8659/2024 on the file of the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and restrained defendant Nos.2 and 3 from alienating or creating encumbrance over all the suit schedule properties. Being aggrieved by the said blanket order of injunction, the present appeal is filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3. Brief facts: 2. The suit is filed by the plaintiff, a minor granddaughter, represented by her mother seeking partition and separate possession in respect of 26 items of the suit schedule properties, contending that the same are ancestral and joint family properties. The appellants - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24039 MFA No. 8948 of 2025 herein, who are defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed their written statement, disputing the claim of the plaintiff. It is specifically contended that Item Nos.1 to 7 and 16 to 26 of the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant Nos.2 and 3. It is further contended that the said properties have been acquired out of their independent earnings derived from their respective occupations and business, over the years. 3. It is stated that defendant No.2 is engaged in lorry business and outsourcing activities, from which he has earned a substantial income and defendant No.3 is a working woman employed in a reputed organization and is also engaged in business, along with defendant No.2 earning considerable income. According to them, these independent sources constitute the sole basis for acquisition of the said properties. Notwithstanding, the said specific defence, the Trial Court by the impugned order has granted a blanket injunction restraining alienation in respect of all the suit schedule properties. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24039 MFA No. 8948 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the specific pleadings in the written statement, wherein it is clearly stated that majority of the properties namely Item Nos.1 to 7 and 16 to 26 are the self-acquired properties of defendant Nos.2 and 3. It is submitted that even as per the case of the plaintiff, her claim is only through her father and during the lifetime of the father, grandfather and great grandfather entitlement is itself is a matter, that has to be considered at the time of trial. In any event, the plaintiff at the highest, would claim a share in respect of the suit properties. It is contended that the Trial Court has erred in granting a straight jacket injunction over all the properties, without distinguishing between the alleged joint family properties and the admitted self-acquired properties of defendant Nos.2 and 3.Learned counsel submits that even if an interim protection is to be granted, the same ought to have been confined only to Item No.8 to 15 of the suit schedule properties. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24039 MFA No. 8948 of 2025 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff supports the order of the Trial Court and submits that the nature of the properties and entitlement of the parties are the matter to be adjudicated at trial and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in granting the injunction to preserve the suit properties. 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arise for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court calls for any interference or modification?” 7. On the perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the appellants have specifically pleaded in their written statement that Item Nos.1 to 7 and 16 to 26 are their self-acquired properties, acquired out of their independent income from business and employment. The said contention is not a vague denial but according to the appellants/defendants is by a definite stand, as to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24039 MFA No. 8948 of 2025 source of acquisition. The Trial Court however, without adverting to the specific defence has proceeded to grant a blanket injunction in respect of all the suit schedule properties. Such an approach, in the considered view of this Court is not in consonance with the settled principles governing the grant of temporary injunction. 8. It is well settled that while considering an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the Court must examine the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, and more importantly, must tailor the relief to the extent necessary to protect the subject matter of the suit. In the present case, even assuming that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, the same at the highest, can said to have been existed only to the extent of his share in the admitted joint family properties. Insofar as the other suit properties i.e., Item Nos.1 to 6 and 16 to 26, the appellants have categorically asserted that they are the self acquired properties. However, without recording any - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24039 MFA No. 8948 of 2025 prima facie finding on the said aspect, the Trial Court was not justified, in restraining the appellants from dealing with those properties. Further, having regard to the fact that the plaintiff is claiming through her father and when the father, grandfather and great grandfather are alive, the extent of her entitlement itself, in the self acquired properties of the father and grandfather is a matter to be adjudicated in trial. In such circumstances, a blanket injunction over all suit properties is clearly excessive. Therefore, in order to maintain and balance equities between the parties, it would be appropriate to modify the order of the Trial Court by confining the injunction only to Item Nos.8 to 15 of the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24039 MFA No. 8948 of 2025 ii. The dated 16.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.8659/2024 on the file of the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby modified to the effect that the injunction granted by the Trial Court shall be confined only to Item Nos.8 to 15 of the suit schedule properties. iii. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are restrained from alienating or creating encumbrance in respect of Item Nos.8 to 15 of the suit schedule properties till the disposal of the suit. iv. Any alienation or any alteration in respect of the remaining properties shall be subject to the result of the suit. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59