- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29098 WP No. 15453 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 15453 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. INDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS D/O. LATE RAMAIAH RESIDING AT WARD NO.6 B.H. PALYA, DIBBUR POST, TUMAKURU TOWN AND DISTRICT - 572 107 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHAGEERATHI L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE. RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2. SMT. NARASIMHAMURTHY R. S/O LATE. RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 3. SMT. MANJAMMA D/O LATE. RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT WARD NO.6 B.H. PALYA, DIBBUR POST, TUMAKURU TOWN AND DISTRICT - 572 107 Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29098 WP No. 15453 of 2026 4. SMT. RAMAKKA W/O.LATE. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 5. SRI. NAGESH.R S/O LATE. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 6. SRI. RAMANJINI.R S/O LATE. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 7. SMT. PUTAMMA, D/O. HANUMAIAH. W/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO.6, B.H. PALYA, DIBBUR POST, TUMAKURU TOWN AND DISTRICT - 572 107 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KEMPEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO 3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-A. CALL FOR THE RECORDSB. DIRECT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/04/2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT TUMAKURU IN MA NO.12/2026 AT ANNEXURE-G, AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 03/03/2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT TUMAKURU IN O.S NO.117/2024 ON IA. NO. III AT ANNEXURE-E AND THEREBY ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29098 WP No. 15453 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2026 passed in MA No.12/2026 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru, whereby the Court has allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have filed a suit for partition. In that, initially they have filed an application not to alienate the suit schedule property, and thereafter, the application is filed seeking an injunction restraining defendant No.2 from making construction, which came to be rejected by order dated 03.03.2026. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs preferred M.A. No.12/2026. The Appellate Court, by the impugned order, allowed the appeal. The Court in the order observed that the defendants had admitted the relationship between the parties and had also admitted that the suit schedule property was the ancestral and joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants. The Court further observed that the defendants had admitted that defendant No.2 was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29098 WP No. 15453 of 2026 undertaking construction on the suit schedule property. When the suit is pending, defendant No.2 had no right to put up any construction till the disposal of the suit. The very photographs produced by both the parties clearly reveal that the plaintiff's right and share in the suit property will be curtailed by the defendant No 2, due to the construction. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, on the face of the records, the photos and the material on record disclose that the plaintiffs have got prima facie case for granting an equitable relief of temporary injunction to the plaintiffs till the disposal of the suit and the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs. If the injunction is not granted, definitely the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Since the suit schedule property is the ancestral and joint family property of both parties, the Court observed that the Trial Court, without considering all these aspects and without framing the proper points for consideration, has dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, defendant No.2 is before this Court. 3. It is submitted that the extent of suit schedule property is 1 acre and he is constructing the building in an extent of 1 gunta. It is contended that even if the suit is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29098 WP No. 15453 of 2026 decreed, it would be within the share of defendant No.2. It is further submitted that they have filed an affidavit before the Court that, in the event the plaintiffs succeed in the suit and any orders passed by the Court, the defendants will not seek equities. It is also submitted that, in similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order, whereby the defendants are permitted to go ahead with the construction. 4. It is submitted that the defendants have invested huge amounts for construction. At this point of time, if the construction is stopped, it would cause a lot of hardship to the defendants. On the other hand, if the construction is carried on and as they are not claiming equities, it would not cause any hardship to the plaintiffs. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has drawn the attention of the Court to the Genealogical tree and also the photographs are placed before the Court to show that all the three members belong to one branch. It is submitted that two persons have already constructed houses and that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29098 WP No. 15453 of 2026 petitioner, who is the third member of the said branch, is presently constructing the house. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of objections filed by defendant No.2 to IA Nos.1/2024 and 3/2026, wherein the defendant has extracted the statement made by the plaintiff stating that all the defendants have colluded/collected men and materials and are making an attempt to dig up the foundation in order to put up the permanent structure in the suit property as of their own. They are not entitled to do so. Further, if they put up the construction, it would definitely impair the value of the suit property and also give rise to a cause for multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, it is warranted to file this application, and the defendants are attempting to carry out construction with the intention of defrauding rights and to obtain an unfair advantage, and the defendants are not entitled to do so. For that, in the objections that were filed by defendant No.2, it is specifically contended that the allegations made by the plaintiffs are all false and frivolous. The defendants have neither colluded nor collected any men and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29098 WP No. 15453 of 2026 material for the purpose of attempting to dig the foundation. The plaintiffs are subjected to strict proof of the same. 7. Learned counsel submits that it is an admitted fact by the defendants that they are going ahead with the construction. They have filed objections to the defendants' affidavit, stating that they are not undertaking any construction, that the plaintiffs' allegations are false, and that they will continue with the construction. They now state that they will not seek any equities from the Court. It is submitted that the statements made before the Court clearly show that the defendants, in one breath, say they are not undertaking any construction. On the other, they are submitting that they will not claim equities. It is submitted that both cannot go together and the Appellate Court has rightly considered and granted the order of injunction. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. 9. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for injunction. The plaintiff belongs to one branch of the family, and defendant - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29098 WP No. 15453 of 2026 Nos.1 to 4 belong to another branch, and defendant No.5 belongs to the third branch. The suit schedule property is 1 acre of land. Two constructions are already put up by one branch, i.e., defendants No.3 and 5. Now, defendant No.2 is making construction, and an affidavit is filed, where they will not claim equities. In the usual course, in a suit for partition, whenever such an affidavit is filed, the Court would generally consider it, as it would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. But in this case, it is the plaintiff's case that defendant No.2 is carrying out construction, and in that regard, he has filed an affidavit before the Trial Court. In response thereto, the defendant No.2 files objections to the same and submits before the Court that the allegations made by the plaintiffs that they are collecting men and material and digging the land are not correct and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. According to the learned counsel to the petitioner, it is a denial. This Court is not able to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel. Apart from denying it, a specific statement is also made that they will not proceed with the construction. A person who has come before the Court and filed an objection stating that they are not making construction cannot be - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29098 WP No. 15453 of 2026 permitted to go ahead with construction in spite of an affidavit filed before this Court that they are not seeking any equities. The party cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time and take the process of the Court for granted. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court do not find any infirmity in the order passed in MA No.12/2026. Therefore, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4