- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29326 W.P. No.22504/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.22504/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. BORAMMA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS W/O LATE G. SWAMYGOWDA R/AT NO.672, NEAR RMP COLONY YELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. SANDHYARANI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O LATE GIRISHA. 2. SRI. KUSHALA G. GOWDA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS S/O LATE GIRISHA. 3. SMT. GEETHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O LATE GOVINDARAJU. 4. SMT. THEJASWINI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O LATE GOVINDARAJU. 5. KUM. ANUSHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O LATE GOVINDARAJU. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29326 W.P. No.22504/2022 6. SRI. GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE G. SWAMYGOWDA. RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT NO. 672, NEAR RMP COLONY HUNSUR-MYSORE MAIN ROAD YELAWALA VILLAGE, YELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 130. 7. SMT. LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS D/O LATE G. SWAMYGOWDA W/O M.B. CHANDRASHEKAR R/AT NO. 1015, SAI KRUPA 4TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE WARD NO. 65, MADHUVANA LAYOUT SRIRAMPURA, MYSURU-570 008. 8. SRI. JAVAREGOWDA @ CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O LATE GIRIGOWDA, R/AT NO.116, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD YELAWALA VILLAGE MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 130. 9. SRI. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE GIRIGOWDA R/AT NO.3511, 20TH B MAIN ROAD 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA MYSURU-570 017. 10. SRI. H. SRINIVASAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA R/AT NO.354, 7TH CROSS YAMALURU, BENGALURU-560 037. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.V. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 V/O/DTD:17.11.2022, NOTICE TO R3 TO R10 ARE D/W) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29326 W.P. No.22504/2022 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSURU IN O.S.NO 682/2019 ON I.A.NO 4 DATED 08.01.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU IN M.A.NO 15/2021 DATED 29.07.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-H & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.01.2021 passed on I.A.No.IV in O.S.No.682/2019 by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru and the order dated 29.07.2022 passed in M.A.No.15/2021 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru. 2. Heard Sri.P.Nataraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Y.V.Prakash, learned counsel for Sri.Y.K.Narayana Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29326 W.P. No.22504/2022 3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.682/2019 for the relief of partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs’ 1/5th share. The petitioner opposed the said suit by filing the written statement. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) seeking temporary injunction against the defendant No.1 or anybody claiming under her from alienating the suit schedule items referred in the application during the pendency of suit for partition. The Trial Court, under the impugned order allowed the said application by restraining the defendant No.1 from alienating the suit schedule items referred in the application. The order of the Trial Court is affirmed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 29.07.2022 passed in M.A.No.15/2021. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of the petitioner-defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs have no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29326 W.P. No.22504/2022 semblance of right over the same. However, the Trial Court, without considering any of the aspects, proceeded to restrain the petitioner-defendant No.1 from alienating the suit schedule properties referred in the application. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 4. It is to be noticed that the plaintiffs and other defendants i.e. defendant Nos.1 to 8 have executed a joint development agreement dated 25.03.2013 and later, it was corrected on 02.12.2016 with the defendant No.9. The material and record indicates that the defendant No.9 has formed the sites in the disputed property and as per the joint development agreement, the plaintiffs and other defendants have been allotted a share. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs in the suit that despite the joint development agreement, the defendant No.1 has sold some of the sites and if such sale is allowed to continue, the suit of the plaintiffs would render infructuous as the plaintiffs will not be able to get the share. The Trial Court, considering the aforesaid rival contentions has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29326 W.P. No.22504/2022 clearly recorded the finding that the plaintiffs as well as the defendant Nos.1 to 8 have signed the joint development agreement and the defendant No.9 has formed the sites in the disputed property. Taking note of the said finding, it has proceeded to allow the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, by restraining the defendant No.1 from alienating the sites formed in Survey No.223/1, which are released by the defendant No.9 in favour of the defendant No.1 till the disposal of the suit. The Appellate Court as well, on re- appreciation of the rival contentions, upheld the finding of the Trial Court. 5. On a re-look, I am of the considered view that the parties to the suit have entered into a joint development agreement and have already formed the sites and if the sites are allowed to be sold by one of the parties to the agreement i.e. defendant No.1, the interests of the other defendants as well as the plaintiffs would be in jeopardy and the suit being for partition, I am of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29326 W.P. No.22504/2022 view that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were fully justified in protecting the interests of the plaintiffs in the suit by restraining the defendant No.1 from alienating the suit schedule property. I do not find any error in the orders under challenge. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly rejected. The Trial Court shall consider the suit on its merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43