- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21069 MFA No. 8171 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8171 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: MRS. THARA PEETHAMBARAM W/O LATE DR. P. PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.45, 9TH CROSS, PARIMALANAGAR, NANDHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 098. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SRINIVASAN RAGHAVAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. KALIGOTLA NITYA & SRI SMARAN SHETTY, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. HARISHANKAR PEETHAMBARAM S/O LATE PEETHAMBARAM PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT PLOT NO.SM3, 2ND CROSS, 3RD STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU-560058. 2. DR. KRISHNARJUN PEETHAMBARAM S/O LATE PEETHAMBARAM PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO. 45, 9TH CROSS, PARIMALANAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 098. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.S. SHYAMSUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI BHARGAV K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; V/O. DATED 18.11.2025 NOTICE TO R-2 IS D/W) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21069 MFA No. 8171 of 2025 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2024 IN O.S.NO.25729/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LD. LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-73) AT MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by defendant No. 1 calling in question the order dated 18.10.2025 passed on I.A.No. 1/2024 in OS No. 25729/2024 on the file of LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and restrained the defendants from alienating or creating third party rights over the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21069 MFA No. 8171 of 2025 BRIEF FACTS 2. The suit in OS No. 25729/2024 is filed by the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession in respect of schedule A, B and C properties. The appellant herein is defendant No. 1. The grievance in the present appeal is confined only to schedule ‘C’ property. It is not in dispute that schedule ‘C’ property stands in the name of defendant No. 1 so also reflected in para 10 of the plaint. It is further stated that certain other properties had already been relinquished in favour of the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the same, the Trial Court has granted an order of injunction in respect of all the suit schedule property including schedule ‘C’ property. 3. Sri Srinivasan Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that schedule ‘C’ property stands in the name of the defendant No. 1 and carries a statutory presumption of absolute ownership under section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘the Act, 1956’ for short). It is contended that in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21069 MFA No. 8171 of 2025 absence of any prima facie material to show that property is a joint family property, the Trial Court was not justified in restraining the appellant from dealing with her own property. 4. Per contra, Sri M.S.Shyamsundar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1-plaintiff seeks to justify the impugned order contending that the property forms part of the joint family estate and that mere standing of the property in the name of a female member is not conclusive and would not fall under the scope and ambit of Section 14. Reliance is placed on the following decisions : (i) Saurabh Gupta v. Archna Gupta and Others1 (Saurab Gupta) (ii) Smt. Narasamma and Others vs Smt. Achachamma and Others2 (Narasamma) 1 2024 SCC Online ALL 2268 2 2012 SCC Online Kar 8314 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21069 MFA No. 8171 of 2025 (iii) Narasamma and Others vs Akkamma and Others3 (Akkamma) (iv) Kumari Sunita vs Manju and Others4 (Kumari Sunita) (v) Narasimhan vs Nagendiran and Others5 (Narasimhan) (vi) K.N.Narayanaswamy vs K.Nanjegowda and Others6 (K.N.Narayanaswamy) (vii) Chinnappan vs Ramachandran7 (Chinnappan) (viii) Exotic Mile Private Limited vs DPAC Ventures LLP8 (Exotic Mile) 3 2019 SCC Online Kar 3847 4 2025 SCC Online All 3740 5 2017 SCC Online Mad 20079 6 RSA 2081/2010 DD 2.3.2020 7 1988 (2) LW.544 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21069 MFA No. 8171 of 2025 (ix) Shaifali Gupta vs Vidya Devi Gupta and Others9 (Shaifali Gupta) (x) Mukatlal vs Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs and Others10 (Mukatlal) (xi) Gangaiah vs Venkatappa and Others11 (Gangaiah) (xii) Charanjeet Singh and Another vs Harvinder Singh and Another12 (Charanjeet Singh) (xiii) Anil Vaswani and Others vs Jyoti Ramesh Santani and Others13 (Anil Vaswani) 8 Commercial Appeal 617/2025, DD 24.11.2025 9 SLP (Civil) 4673/2023 10 2024 SCC Online SC 964 11 RSA 196/2014, DD 24.04.2019 12 RFA (OS) 18/2023 and CM APPL.44253/2025 13 2025 SCC Online Del 4163 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21069 MFA No. 8171 of 2025 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the Trial Court was justified in granting an order of temporary injunction in respect of the ‘C’ schedule property and whether the impugned order calls for any interference in this appeal? 6. It is not in dispute that the schedule ‘C’ property stands in the name of defendant No. 1. The applicability of Section 14 (1) depends upon the nature and source of acquisition and whether the property was possessed by her in her own right so as to enlarge into absolute ownership. However, at the stage of considering an application for temporary injunction, when property admittedly stands in the name of defendant No. 1, prima facie presumption of ownership arises in her favour. The burden lies on the plaintiff to place material to show that the property, though standing in her name, is in fact joint - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21069 MFA No. 8171 of 2025 family property or otherwise held for the benefit of the family. In the present case, except for a bald assertion, no prima facie material is placed to demonstrate that schedule ‘C’ property is a joint family property. Therefore, at this interlocutory stage, the Court cannot ignore the apparent title in favour of defendant No. 1 and restrain her from dealing with the property. At the stage of considering an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, the Court is required to apply the settled principles governing grant of temporary injunction, namely existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. A prima facie case does not mean prima facie a finding on title, but only that the matter raises a serious triable issue. It is neither desirable nor permissible at this stage to record a conclusive finding on the merits of the case. Any observation made are only tentative and shall not bind the parties at the time of final adjudication. 7. The object of an interim injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury which may not be adequately - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21069 MFA No. 8171 of 2025 compensated in damages. At the same time the Court must also consider the corresponding right of the defendant to enjoy and deal with the property, particularly when such right is supported by apparent title. Therefore, the balance of convenience has to be weighed between the parties. In the present case except for a bald assertion that the property is a joint family estate, no prima facie material is placed to dislodge the statutory presumption available in favour of defendant No. 1 under Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956. The judgments relied by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 including Saurab Gupta, Narasamma and Kumari Sunita (supra) laid down that the property standing in the name of a female member may still be treated as a joint family, if supported by evidence. However, those decisions proceed on the basis of existence of a prima facie material which is absent in the present case. Similarly, reliance on Charanjeet Singh and Mukatlal (supra) pertains to factual situations where the nature of acquisition are substantiated by material on - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21069 MFA No. 8171 of 2025 record. In the absence of such foundation, the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case strong enough to restrain defendant No. 1 from dealing with schedule ‘C’ property. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellant who is recorded owner. Irreparable injury in such circumstances cannot be presumed. Further, the grant of injunction being discretionary, this Court finds that the Trial Court has exercised its discretion without properly appreciating the strong presumption and the settled principles governing grant of interim relief. The law is well settled that the interference by the Appellate Court, is warranted when the discretion exercised by the Trial Court suffer from perversity and arbitrariness. Accordingly, interference is warranted in so far as schedule ‘C’ property is concerned. The point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following : - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21069 MFA No. 8171 of 2025 ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The order dated 18.10.2025 on I.A.No. 1 in OS No. 25729/2024 is set aside insofar as it relates to schedule ‘C’ property. The order of temporary injunction shall continue to operate in respect of schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ property. (iii) It is made clear that the observation made herein is a prima facie in nature and shall not influence the Trial Court while deciding the suit on merits. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66