- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:803 MFA No. 100034 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100034 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI. PRAHLADA S/O. HANAMAPPA GORAKOPPA, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. TOTADA ONI, BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. HANUMAPPA @ HANUMANTAPPA S/O. MUDIYAPPA GORAKOPPA, AGE ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. TOTADA ONI, BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. 2. SMT. MALLAVVA W/O. HANUMAPPA GORAKOPPA, AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. TOTADA ONI, BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. 3. SHRI. BASAVARAJA S/O. HANUMAPPA GORAKOPPA, AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. TOTADA ONI, BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. 4. SMT. HANUMAVVA W/O. BASANAGOUDA.GOWDAR, AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. TOTADA ONI, BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. 5. SHRI. MANJUNATH S/O. HANUMAPPA GORAKOPPA, AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. TOTADA ONI, BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:803 MFA No. 100034 of 2026 6. SMT. HULIGEVVA W/O. SIDDAPPA KARIGOUDRA, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. HULIGEPPA, TQ. RAMADURGA, DIST. BELAGAVI-591123. 7. SMT. SHANKRAVVA W/O. BASAPPA BOMMANNAVAR, AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. CHAVADIKERE ONI, BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. 8. SHRI. HANUMANTA S/O. PARASAPPA MUTTAL, AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. ANAND NAGAR, GANESH GUDI, BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. 9. SHRI. SHIVANAND S/O. PARASAPPA MUTTAL, AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. TOTADA ONI, BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. 10. SHRI. MARUTI S/O. PARASAPPA MUTTAL, AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. ANAND NAGARA, GANESH GUDI, BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. 11. SMT. RENUKA W/O. GANGADHAR ADANNAVAR, AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. M.K. HUBBALLI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591123. 12. SMT. MANJULA D/O. PARASAPPA MUTTAL, AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. ANAND NAGAR, GANESH GUDI, BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE AND SRI. SHAKTIPRASAD AKKI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.01.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN OS NO.85 OF 2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT BADAMI AS ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE SAME BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:803 MFA No. 100034 of 2026 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.85/2025 dated 06.01.2026 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami, (for short ‘the Trial Court’) the plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition. In the said suit, he filed I.A.No.1 seeking an injunction restraining the defendant from creating any third party rights in respect of item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule properties. Initially, the Trial Court had granted an injunction and later, it was vacated. Against the said order, the present appeal is filed. 3. The Trial Court, while vacating the injunction, observed that Item No.2 was purchased by Mudiyappa S/o. Hanamappa Gorakoppad vide sale deed dated 22.04.1977. Further, it appears that he relinquished his right over the said property in favour of defendant No.1 as per M.E.No.1458 dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:803 MFA No. 100034 of 2026 12.09.1995. Further, the defendant No.1 has purchased Item No.3 of the suit schedule property. Whether the defendant No.1 has purchased Item No.3 of the suit property out of the income of the joint family or not has to be decided by the Court during the course of the trial and at this stage, as the plaintiff could not make out a prima facie case, the Trial Court had vacated the injunction. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the relinquishment deed, which the Court has mentioned about, is an unregistered document and in respect of Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, the name of the grandfather of the petitioner is reflected in the revenue records. It is submitted that the defendant No.1 had purchased Item No.3 of the scheduled property from the proceeds of the joint family income and as such, the Trial Court ought to have granted injunction as he made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience is in his favour. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant submits that originally the suit Item No.2 property was purchased on 22.04.1977 and the relinquishment deed is of the year 1995. It - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:803 MFA No. 100034 of 2026 was not questioned by any of the family members. Hence, at this point of time, it is not open for them to say that item No.2 property belongs to the joint family. It is submitted that the Item No.3 of the suit schedule property is purchased by the defendant and it is a self-acquired property and there cannot be any injunction against the defendant. It is submitted that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of injunction. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. There are three items of suit schedule properties. As far as item No.1 is concerned, that is a joint family property and the plaintiff has sought injunction in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the scheduled properties. According to the defendant, the grandfather has relinquished his right in favour of the defendant by way of a document dated 12.09.1995. That is an unregistered document and nothing has been placed on record to show that pursuant to the document dated 12.09.1995, the name of the defendant is mutated in the revenue records. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Court that it cannot be decided and the plaintiff is not entitled for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:803 MFA No. 100034 of 2026 injunction in respect of Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, is contrary to the material on record. Then, coming to Item No.3 of the suit schedule, the defendant has purchased the said property. According to him, he has purchased the property in the year 1996. According to the plaintiff, that property is also purchased out of the income of the joint family properties. As far as the said property is concerned, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the case of the plaintiff. 7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for in respect of Item No.2 of the scheduled properties. As far as Item No.3 is concerned, he is not entitled for injunction and the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. (i) The order on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.85/2025 dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami, as far as Item No.2 of the suit schedule property is set aside and the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for injunction. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:803 MFA No. 100034 of 2026 (ii) As far as Item No.3 of the schedule property is concerned, appeal is dismissed. (iii) The observations made by this Court are only for the purpose of deciding this application and the same shall not be construed as an expression of this Court. (iv) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI YAN CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45