- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4946 MFA No. 6154 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6154 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR.B.RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O LATE B.L BORAIAH, R/A NO. 63, 2ND MAIN ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAMA, BENGALURU-560020. 2. MR. B.LINGAPPA S/O LATE B.L.BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/A NO.10, R.K STREET, SHESHADRIPURMA, BENGALURU- 560020. 3. B. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE B.L. BORAIAH, R/A NO. 10, R.K STREET, SHESHADRIPURMA, BENGALURU- 560020. 4. B. PRASAD AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE B.L.BORAIAH, R/A NO. 23, KARTHIK NILAYA, RAMAKRISHNA STREET, BENGALURU- 560020. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R SWAROOP ANAND, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4946 MFA No. 6154 of 2025 AND: 1. MRS.YASHODAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, D/O LATE B.L.BORAIAH, 2. MRS. JAYAMMA.B. AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, D/O LATE B.L.BORAIAH, 3. MRS. SHANTHAMMA.B @ SHANTHA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, D/O LATE B.L. BORAIAH 4. MRS. INDIRA.B AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, D/O LATE B.L. BORAIAH RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ALL TOGETHER RESIDING AT NO.10, LINGAPPA BLOCK RAMAKRISHNAIAH STREET, SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU- 560 020 5. MRS. SHARADA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, D/O LATE B. GANGALINGAMMA, GRANDDAUGHTER OF LATE B.L BORAIAH R/A NO.31, SIRURU PARK ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560020 6. M/S. CYMA INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 204, RAJANIGANDHA GARDEN APARTMENTS, 21, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU- 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SYED SABIR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N.JAI PRAKASH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.01.2026, NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4946 MFA No. 6154 of 2025 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) READ WITH SECTION 104 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.R.Swaroop Anand., counsel for the appellants and Sri.Syed Sabir., counsel on behalf of Sri.N.Jai Prakash Rao., for respondents 1 to 5 have appeared in person. 2. For convenience’s sake, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranking and status before the Trial Court. 3. This appeal is restricted solely to the interim application. I do not intend to expand the scope of this appeal beyond the issue of temporary injunction, leaving the main suit open for trial. 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.1103/2025. They also filed an interlocutory - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4946 MFA No. 6154 of 2025 application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking an ex-parte interim order of temporary injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from in any manner creating third party right or encumbrance in respect of the plaint schedule properties. The Trial Court on 14.02.2025 granted an ad interim ex-parte temporary injunction against the defendants 1 to 4, restraining them from creating third-party rights or encumbrances in respect of the plaint schedule properties in favour of third parties in any manner whatsoever. Subsequently, the summons was issued, and pursuant to the same, the defendants appeared and filed a written statement and objections to I.A.No.1 on 26.03.2025. The Trial Court vide order dated:20.08.2025, allowed the application. Hence, defendants 1 to 4 have filed this appeal on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4946 MFA No. 6154 of 2025 5. Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 6. The point that would require for consideration is whether the Trial Court is justified in allowing the application? 7. Before addressing this point directly, we should first briefly review the basics of a temporary injunction. An injunction is a judicial proceeding whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing, any particular act. It is a remedy in the form of an order of the Court addressed to the particular person that either prohibits him from doing or continuing to do a particular act (prohibitory injunction), or orders him to carry out a certain act (mandatory injunction). Injunctions are of two kinds: (i) Temporary and (ii) Permanent. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4946 MFA No. 6154 of 2025 A permanent injunction restrains a party forever from doing the specified act and can be granted only on the merits at the conclusion of the trial after hearing both parties to the suit. On the other hand, a temporary or interim injunction restrains a party temporarily from doing the specified act and can be granted only until the disposal of the suit or until further orders of the Court. It is regulated by the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and may be granted at any stage of the suit. Before granting the temporary injunction, the following considerations are required to be satisfied: (i) There is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. (ii) That irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated for in terms of money. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4946 MFA No. 6154 of 2025 (iii) That the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. (iv) The conduct of the plaintiff should be fair and honest. 8. Acknowledging the background, the factual data present the following picture. The plaintiffs initiated the present suit seeking several reliefs. The main reliefs sought, among others, are for a declaration that the partition deed dated 26.11.1977 to the extent of the schedule properties is null and void and not enforceable against plaintiffs 1 to 5 as they are entitled to a 1/9th share. For a declaration that the partition deed dated 27.06.2003 to the extent of the schedule properties is null and void and not enforceable against plaintiffs 1 to 5, as they are entitled to a 1/9th share. For a declaration that the release deed dated 22.08.2009 to the extent of the schedule properties is null - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4946 MFA No. 6154 of 2025 and void and not enforceable against plaintiffs 1 to 5, as they are entitled to a 1/9th share. Defendants contended that the partition suit is not maintainable, as the properties are self-acquired. It is the specific contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs had full knowledge of the prior partitions in 1953 and 1977, under which the properties were divided and enjoyed separately. They also contended that, since the severance of status and partition in 1953, 1977 and 2003, the properties listed as have been under their exclusive dominion and control, to the exclusion of all other co- sharers. The plaintiffs applied to order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the CPC, seeking a temporary injunction. Notably, defendants 1 to 4 filed their objections and contested the application. The Trial Court allowed the application by taking note of the prima facie case and the balance of convenience. I concur; the allowance of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4946 MFA No. 6154 of 2025 temporary injunction. The plaintiffs instituted the present suit in 2025, seeking inter-alia, partition and declaration. Simultaneously, the plaintiff moves for an application seeking an order of temporary injunction to preserve the subject matter of the suit during the pendency of the proceedings. For an injunction to be granted, the plaintiff/s must typically demonstrate a prima facie case, the balance of convenience in their favour, and the likelihood of suffering irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. A forty- eight year delay makes it difficult to prove the urgency of “irreparable loss/ injury”. They failed to assert their rights for 48 years, starting from 1977. To be precise, the inordinate delays - 52 years since 1953 and 48 years since 1977 - negate any claim of urgency, making it impossible to prove that a 'reparable' injury has become an 'irreparable' one requiring immediate injunctive relief. Furthermore, the inordinate and unreasonable delay has caused circumstances to change significantly over time, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4946 MFA No. 6154 of 2025 and a party seeking urgent, immediate equitable relief (such as an injunction) must approach the Court within a reasonable time. His or her long period of acquiescence invalidates his/her current claim for the immediate relief. It is a well-settled principle of law that interim relief can always be granted in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or any proceedings. Therefore, a Court undoubtedly possesses the power to grant interim relief during the pendency of the suit. Temporary injunctions are thus injunctions issued during the pendency of the proceedings. The Trial Court has erred in observing that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, as the material and record did not demonstrate sufficient grounds for immediate intervention, nor was the balance of convenience established in the plaintiff's favour. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4946 MFA No. 6154 of 2025 It is noted that the issue of limitation is a substantial question requiring full consideration and cannot be conclusively decided at the interlocutory stage. The plaintiffs did not satisfy the foundational requirement for temporary relief, particularly failing to make out a prima facie case that warranted such an equitable intervention. The power to grant or refuse a temporary injunction rests on the sound exercise of discretion by the Court, which must be based on established principles, including a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is a matter of judicial discretion, and the Trial Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously and on sound legal principles establishing a strong prima facie case and balance of conveniences. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside, as it is arbitrary and capricious. The Trial Court arrived at an improper conclusion, which warrants interference from this Court. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4946 MFA No. 6154 of 2025 9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Court of XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-6) on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.1103/2025 is set aside. Because of disposal of the appeal, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52