- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15716 MFA No. 555 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.555 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SELVAKUMAR .G S/O. GOVINDARAJU .R AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, DOOR NO.4-1, 4TH FLOOR, HOUSE NO.2, 3RD CROSS, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR M.G. SCHOOL, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560076. 2. SRI ARUNKUMAR G. S/O GOVINDARAJU .R AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, DOOR NO.1-3, 1ST FLOOR, HOUSE NO.2, 3RD CROSS, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR M.G. SCHOOL, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 076. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI ANJANEYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI GOVINDARAJ .R S/O LATE RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. SARAVANA G. S/O GOVINDARAJU .R AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.2, 3RD CROSS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15716 MFA No. 555 of 2026 DOOR NO.1-1, 1ST FLOOR, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR M.G.SCHOOL, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560076. 3. MR. DODDALINGE GOWDA M.S. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, DOOR NO.5-1, 5TH FLOOR HOUSE NO.2, 3RD CROSS, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR M.G. SCHOOL, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560076. 4. KALPANA D/O NANJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DOOR NO.4-2, 4TH FLOOR HOUSE NO.2, 3RD CROSS, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR M.G.SCHOOL, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560076. 5. CHINMAY AND YESH C/O PUSHPALATHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DOOR NO.4-3, 4TH FLOOR, HOUSE NO.2, 3RD CROSS, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR M.G. SCHOOL, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560076. 6. MRS. RACHITHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, DOOR NO.2-3, W/O AJAY KUMAR .M 2ND FLOOR, HOUSE NO.2, 3RD CROSS, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR M.G. SCHOOL, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560076. 7. MR. RAMESH S/O ANAND, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, DOOR NO.3-3, 3RD FLOOR, HOUSE NO.2, 3RD CROSS, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR M.G. SCHOOL, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560076. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15716 MFA No. 555 of 2026 8. MR.BAL RAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, DOOR NO.2-4, 2ND FLOOR, HOUSE NO.2, 3RD CROSS, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR M.G. SCHOOL, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560076. 9. SMT. LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DOOR NO.2-2, 2ND FLOOR HOUSE NO.2, 3RD CROSS, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR M.G. SCHOOL, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560076. 10. MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DOOR NO.2-1, 2ND FLOOR, HOUSE NO.2, 3RD CROSS, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR M.G. SCHOOL, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560076. 11. M. RAMU MURTHY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, DOOR NO.3-4, 3RD FLOOR, HOUSE NO.2, 3RD CROSS, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR M.G. SCHOOL, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560076. 12. SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT GROUND FLOOR NO.2, 3RD CROSS, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR M.G. SCHOOL, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560076. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.8481/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-45), DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., 1908. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15716 MFA No. 555 of 2026 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs calling in question the order dated 24.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S. No.8481/2024 on the file of the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru (‘trial Court’, for short), whereby, the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking direction to restrain defendant Nos.1 and 2 from collecting the rents and to direct the tenants to deposit the rents before the Court came to be rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the material on record. 3. The suit is one for partition and separate possession based on the registered sale deed dated 30.10.2019. The plaintiffs contend that they have - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15716 MFA No. 555 of 2026 invested in the purchase of the suit schedule property and that the properties stand in the joint names of the parties. It is alleged that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are collecting rents exclusively for the past several years, without sharing the same with the plaintiffs, necessitating the filing of I.A. No.1 seeking deposit of rents into Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have invested amount for purchase of the schedule property and respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2 colluded with each other, and have been collecting rents for nearly six years without accounting to the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the appellants claim entitlement to rental income and non-interference would result in financial prejudice. Hence, the impugned order warrants interference. 5. This Court has carefully considered the contention and perused the material on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15716 MFA No. 555 of 2026 6. The trial Court while considering the application - I.A. No.1 has framed the following points for consideration :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs have made out prima-facie case in their favour in respect of I.A.No.1? 2. Whether the balance of convenience in respect of I.A.No.1 lies in favour of the plaintiffs? 3. Whether the irreparable injury or hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs in the event of dismissal of their I.A.No.1? 7. The suit is one for partition and separate possession, the rights of the parties are yet to be adjudicated. The relief sought in I.A.No.1 namely, direction to deposit rents would amount to predetermination of rights at an interlocutory stage. The trial Court has rightly observed that: i. there is no crystallized rights established in favour of the plaintiffs at this stage. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15716 MFA No. 555 of 2026 ii. The properties are not shown to be in a situation of waste, damage or alienation so as to warrant such direction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 8. In contrast, the trial Court has already protected the subject matter by granting status quo and restraining alienation under I.A.s Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, refusal to grant the relief of deposit of rents does not suffer from illegality or perversity warranting appellate interference. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53