- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26522 WP No. 13874 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 13874 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.CHIKKATHIMAIHA S/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SRI. HANUMANTHARAJU, S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAIAH, SRI.GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 3. SRI.GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT YARRANAPALYA, 4. SRI. VENKATESH, S/O LATE GANGARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT YARRANAPALYA, NIDAVANDA POST, THYMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 123 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N.KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI B.C.RENUKARADHYA S/O LATE CHIKKAGANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.138, KEREGUDDADAHALLI, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26522 WP No. 13874 of 2026 NEAR GOPALAPPANAHA ANGADI, CHIKKABANAVARA, BANGALORE - 560 090 2. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S., S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT SUMA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN, HAVANURU EXTENSION, DEFENCE COLONY, NEAR SHOOTING HOUSE, BANGALORE - 560 073 3. M/S. BUILDMET FIBRES PRIVATE LIMITED, R/BY MR. SELVAGANGAPATHY RAMAKRISHNAN, (MANAGING DIRECTOR), AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O MR. SELVAGANAPATHY, R/AT VILLA NO. 17, SOBHA LIFESTYLE, IVC ROAD, T. HOSAHALLI, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 4. SRI.GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE VEERAPPA @ ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/OF SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA, NO.752, 6TH MAIN ROAD, KERAMALU VEERANNA AND ASHRAMA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM PIPE LINE, BANGALORE 560 003 5. SRI SIDDAIAH, S/O LATE VEERAPPA @ ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/OF YARRANAPALYA, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 132 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26522 WP No. 13874 of 2026 6. SMT. SRIDEVI W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 7. SMT. BINDUSHRI D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 8. SRI KEERTHI S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 ARE R/OF RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA, DABASPET, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 111 9. SRI.CHANNATHIMMAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, CHANNATHIMMAIAHNAPALYA, NEAR ARALIMARA, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BILLINAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 111 10. RAJKUMAR S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/OF YARRANAPALYA, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 132 11. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH @ RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/OF YARRANAPALYA, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 132. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26522 WP No. 13874 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 21.04.2026 PASSED IN MA NO. 41/2025 BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT ANNEXURE-G AND THEREBY RESTORE AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OD TEMPORARY INJUNCTION DATED 03.05.2025 PASSED IN IA NO. 1 IN OS NO. 495/2024 BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NELAMANGALA AT ANNEXURE- D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in M.A.No.41/2025 dated 21.04.2026 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, whereby the injunction that was granted by the trial Court in I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.495/2024 dated 03.05.2025 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala, is set aside. 2. The petitioners herein who are the plaintiffs in the suit had filed O.S.No.495/2024 for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the properties are joint family properties and the properties were sold in the year 1996 and 2023, but the plaintiffs have come to know about the said transactions in the year 2024 and hence, they - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26522 WP No. 13874 of 2026 had filed the present suit seeking partition. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had filed I.A. seeking injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property. 3. The trial Court had granted injunction by order dated 03.05.2025. While granting the injunction, the trial Court had observed that the plaintiffs have moved the trial Court seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property during the pendency of the suit. The gravamen of the plaintiffs' contention is that any alienation or transfer of property by the defendants who currently stand in possession and are registered in the revenue records would severely perverse the plaintiffs' right and render the entire litigation nugatory. The plaintiffs submitted that once the property is alienated, regaining possession or value would be fraught with difficulty, if not outright impossible, thereby causing irreparable injury. The trial Court had held that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs and they had laid out a prima facie case and accordingly granted injunction. 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein who are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit had carried the same in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26522 WP No. 13874 of 2026 appeal by filing MA.No.41/2025. The Appellate Court had set aside the order of injunction and while setting aside the order dated 03.05.2025, the Appellate Court had observed that though the trial Court had considered the aspects of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, it has ignored other settled principals of law such as the plaintiffs seeking equitable relief of temporary injunction should come to the Court with clean hands and should not suppress the material facts and should not be guilty of unreasonable delay and latches. The trial Court blindly granted temporary injunction, merely holding that the suit property previously stood in the name of deceased Doddathimmaiah, grandfather of the plaintiffs and that no document has been produced to prove partition or relinquishment in respect of the suit property. The Appellate Court had held that the findings of the trial Court is arbitrary and perverse and cannot be justified. The discretion exercised by the trial Court is not the one which was reasonably possible on the pleadings and materials placed before it. It is observed that the trial Court had also ignored the fact that the plaintiffs are guilty of delay and latches in approaching the Court and challenging the alienations. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26522 WP No. 13874 of 2026 Accordingly, the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court was vacated and the order dated 03.05.2025 was set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the trial Court had considered the prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss and rightly granted injunction. It is submitted that as another view is possible for the Appellate Court, that could not be the reason for the Appellate Court to interfere with the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. It is submitted that the nature of the land is an agricultural land and the petitioners are very much in possession of the property and as it is a joint family property, it cannot be sold. When it came to the knowledge of the petitioners, the petitioners had immediately approached the trial Court by filing the instant suit. If the injunction is not granted and the property is further alienated, it would unnecessarily lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Considering this aspect, the trial Court had granted injunction and the Appellate Court without any basis had set aside the same. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ defendants submits that the property was originally sold in the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26522 WP No. 13874 of 2026 year 1996. The second sale was in the year 2021 and the respondents herein had purchased the property in the year 2023. It is submitted that the land is converted from agricultural to non-agricultural on 31.03.2023. Right from the year 1996, the name of the purchaser was mutated in the revenue records and the petitioners and other family members who are aware of the same have come up with the present collusive suit. The trial Court only has appreciated that the property belongs to the grandfather of the plaintiffs, but failed to consider the fact that later, several sales have taken place, names of the purchasers were mutated in the revenue records. It is submitted that on the face of it, it is a collusive suit where except this property, no other properties are included and the grandfather of the petitioners/plaintiffs is having several other properties. It is submitted that the Appellate Court had rightly considered and rightly set aside the injunction granted by the trial Court. It is submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Appellate Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The suit is filed for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26522 WP No. 13874 of 2026 partition. According to the plaintiffs, the suit schedule property is a joint family property and several transactions have taken place from 1996 to 2003. It is the case that it was an agricultural land and the plaintiffs was in possession of the property. This Court has perused the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1 and while granting injunction, the trial Court looking at the RTC entries in the year 1968-69, 1988-89 and also having perused the Sale Deeds, came to the conclusion that a perusal of these records establishes beyond any doubt that the root of the title traces back to the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-title and that no lawful partition or relinquishment has ever been executed by the plaintiffs relinquishing their undivided share in the suit schedule property. The trial Court also observed that more significantly, the defendants have not produced a single document to demonstrate that they are the exclusive owners of the suit schedule property. There is an absolute dearth of any evidence from the defendants that could validate the chain of title claimed by them or establish their right to sell or subdivide the property. The absence of any such documentation severely weakens the defence and affirms the prima facie validity of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26522 WP No. 13874 of 2026 plaintiffs' claims. It is further observed that the transactions being unilateral are prima facie tainted with fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts and therefore lack the elements of good faith and lawful consideration that are essential to uphold transfer of immovable property under law. 8. The trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that the alienations have taken place right from the year 1996 till 2023 and the petitioners had come before the trial Court in the year 2024 by filing the present suit and sought the relief of interim injunction. The plaintiffs, who have kept quiet from the year 1996, after nearly 20 years comes to the Court seeking partition. In fact, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss are in favour of the defendants. Further, the Appellate Court had also considered the fact that except this property, other properties of the joint family are not included in the suit schedule, which shows the intention of the plaintiffs. The Appellate Court had also observed that the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and a person who has not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled for the equitable relief of injunction. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26522 WP No. 13874 of 2026 9. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the Appellate Court was conscious of its jurisdiction while entertaining the M.A. and had by way of a cogent reasoning had rightly set aside the injunction granted by the trial Court and this Court finds no reasons to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. Any of the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the petition before this Court and these observations shall not be construed as an expression of this Court and the trial Court shall decide the main suit on the merits of the case. iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8