- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28015 WP No. 15002 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 15002 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHASHIKALA. M. V. W/O S.V.SURESH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO. 10/12, 1ST CROSS 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU -560 011 2. SUMA M.V., W/O J.ASHWATHNARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO. 62-F, 1ST FLOOR 6TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU -560 041 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.G.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M. P. SHREYAS S/O LATE M.V.PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO. 62-F, 1ST FLOOR 6TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU -560 041 2. M.P.CHAITANYA S/O LATE M.V.PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28015 WP No. 15002 of 2026 R/AT NO. 62-F, 1ST FLOOR 6TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK JAYANGAR BENGALURU -560 041 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.C.V.ANNAIAH, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 30.04.2026 ON I.A.NO. 1/2023 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS PASSED BY THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO. 7137/2023 ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A. 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 orders passed on I.A.No.1/2023 in OS.No.7137/2023 dated 30.04.2026 by the LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru whereby the trial court has directed the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- as per the WILL dated 22.03.2004 for plaintiff's maintenance and their welfare within 15 days from the date of the order, the petitioner-defendant is before this court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits that this order is unknown to law and the trial court cannot - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28015 WP No. 15002 of 2026 pass an order directing the defendants to pay the amount within 15 days. Earlier when an order of this nature was passed the petitioner has carried this court by filing a writ petition i.e., WP.No.5989/2026 and this court by order dated 26.02.2026 has set aside the order and remanded the matter to the court for fresh consideration. After conducting fresh trial, the trial court has passed this order. It is submitted that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. As per the WILL, once they attain the age of 30, then they are entitled for the possession of the properties. Until such time, the defendant shall manage the properties. It is submitted that as per the WILL, she has been managing the properties and whatever the income that is derived she has been depositing it in the fixed deposit and some amount is kept in the bank account for paying the taxes and also taking care of the expenses of the plaintiffs. It is also submitted that the expenses what are stated by the plaintiff, cannot be considered as the expenses for maintenance, for all the luxuries they cannot seek such huge amounts. Even if they require any amount, the court by way of an interlocutory order cannot direct the defendant to pay the amount without even determining the dispute that is involved - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28015 WP No. 15002 of 2026 and whether the suit is maintainable or not. He has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden & others1 . He has relied on paragraph No.16, 17 and 18 which reads as follows: 16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are: (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trail. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money. (3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief. 17. Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the Court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circum- stances in each case. Though the above guidelines are nei- ther exhaustive or complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, 1 1992 SCC 117 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28015 WP No. 15002 of 2026 applying them as prerequisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion. 18. The suit is one filed under section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In considering the question of interim mandatory injunction in a suit filed under section 44 of the Act the Court has also to keep in mind the restriction on the rights of the transferee to joint possession under that section. The section reads as follows: "44. Where one of two or more co-owners of immoveable property legally competent in that behalf transfers his share of such property or any interest therein, the transferee acquires, as to such share or interest, and so far as is necessary to give effect to the transfer, the transfer- or's right to joint possession or other common or part enjoyment of the property, and to enforce a partition of the same, but subject to the conditions and liability affecting, at the date of the transfer, the share or interest so transferred. Where the transferee of a share of a dwelling- house belonging to an undivided family is not a member of the family, nothing in this section shall be deemed to entitle him to joint possession or other common or part enjoyment of the house." It is submitted that the trial court went wrong in passing the impugned order and the appropriate remedy is to seek attachment. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- plaintiff submits that their grandmother has executed WILL bequeathing the properties in their favour in the year 2005. When the WILL was executed plaintiffs were aged about 7 and 5 years. It is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28015 WP No. 15002 of 2026 submitted that as per the WILL, the defendant who is the aunt of the plaintiff has to take care of the properties and shall safeguard the properties. The amount derived from said properties can be utilized for paying the taxes and also for the maintenance of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has not taken care of the welfare of the plaintiffs and now they are aged about 29 and 27 years. It is submitted that the defendant’s are not taking care of the welfare of the plaintiff’s. It is submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the WILL. The defendants are admitting the contents of the WILL and an amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- is in the fixed deposit and an amount of Rs.63,00,000/- is lying in the savings bank account. Considering all this and the purpose for which the Will is executed by the grandmother, the trial court has rightly passed an order and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Initially when this court has perused the order passed by the trial court, this court could not understand on how at an interlocutory stage the trial court has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28015 WP No. 15002 of 2026 directed the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to the plaintiff’s. Going into the facts and circumstances of the case, where the WILL is executed by the grandmother and the aunt is managing the facts of the property, the grandchildren are before the court stating that as per the WILL their maintenance is not taken care of by the defendant. In this case the defendant has nothing to do with the amount that is lying in the Bank which is derived from the said properties which belongs to the plaintiffs. It is the contention that the plaintiffs cannot file a suit because they are not 30 years old and they have no cause of action, but they are seeking for their maintenance in the light of the WILL executed by the grandmother. 5. Leaving all this apart, the order passed by the court will not cause any prejudice to the defendant. Ultimately money belongs to the plaintiffs and there is no dispute about this. The defendants themselves are accepting that the money belongs to the Plaintiffs. However, the case is that plaintiffs are not 30 years old, there is no cause of action and there cannot be an order of this nature and the counsel relies on the judgment of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28015 WP No. 15002 of 2026 the Apex Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden & others referred supra. 6. In the considered opinion of this court, looking at the facts and circumstances, in the light of the un-disputed facts, the court has considered and granted the amount for their maintenance. However, the court has granted an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs. Balancing the interest of the parties, this court is passing the following: ORDER i. The interim order passed on 30.04.2026 in O.S.No.7137/2023 by the LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore is modified. Instead of Rs.50,00,000/- it is reduced to Rs.30,00,000/-. ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. iii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15