- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16108 MFA No. 605 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 513 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.605 OF 2026 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.513 OF 2026 (CPC) IN MFA NO.605/2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI RANGASWAMY C.K. S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO.288, 8TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040. 2. NAGARATHNA .H W/O RANGASWAMY C.K., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O NO.288, 8TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. AISHWARYA HEGDE M.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI NANJUNDAIAH S/O LATE DODDAHONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O NO.52, 1ST MAIN, LAKSHMAMMA LAYOUT, DODDABANASVADI, BANGALORE-560 043. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16108 MFA No. 605 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 513 of 2026 2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O NO.52, 1ST MAIN, LAKSHMAMMA LAYOUT, DODDABANASVADI, BANGALORE-560 043. 3. GANGADHARAIAH, S/O LATE DODDAHONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O K.H.B. COLONY, KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL-572130. 4. HANUMAMMA, W/O GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O K.H.B. COLONY, KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL-572 130. 5. KEMPAHONNAMMA, D/O LATE DODDAHONNAIAH, W/O MAYANNA .N AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O NO.36, NAGASANDRA, K.G. TEMPLE POST, GUBBI RURAL, TUMAKURU-572216. 6. HONNAMMA, D/O LATE DODDAHONNAIAH, W/O B.K. KEMPALAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O BEGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK-572 130. 7. RAVIKUMAR M.N., S/O MAYANNA .N AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NO.23, LAKSHMI NILAYA, K. CHENNAPPA ROAD, NEAR RK HOSPITAL, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, ST. THOMAS TOWN, BANGALORE-560084. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16108 MFA No. 605 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 513 of 2026 8. RAMACHANDRAPPA N.M, S/O MAYANNA .N AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO.36, NAGASANDRA, K.G. TEMPLE POST, GUBBI RURAL, TUMAKURU-577216. 9. GOVINDARAJU B.K., S/O B.K. KEMPALAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O BEGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK-572 130. 10. YATHISHA B.K., S/O B.K. KEMPALAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O BEGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK-572 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PUNITH C., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.V IN O.S.NO.82/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC, KUNIGAL, DISMISSING I.A.NO.V FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., 1908. IN MFA NO.513/2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI RANGASWAMY C.K., S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO.288, 8TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040. 2. NAGARATHNA .H W/O RANGASWAMY C.K., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O NO.288, 8TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040. ...APPELLANTS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16108 MFA No. 605 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 513 of 2026 (BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. AISHWARYA HEGDE M.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI NANJUNDAIAH, S/O LATE DODDAHONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O NO.52, 1ST MAIN, LAKSHMAMMA LAYOUT, DODDABANASVADI, BANGALORE-560 043. 2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O NO.52, 1ST MAIN, LAKSHMAMMA LAYOUT, DODDABANASVADI, BANGALORE-560 043. 3. GANGADHARAIAH, S/O LATE DODDAHONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O K.H.B. COLONY, KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL-572130. 4. HANUMAMMA, W/O GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O K.H.B. COLONY, KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL-572 130. 5. KEMPAHONNAMMA, D/O LATE DODDAHONNAIAH, W/O MAYANNA N., AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O NO.36, NAGASANDRA, K.G. TEMPLE POST, GUBBI RURAL, TUMAKURU-572216. 6. HONNAMMA, D/O LATE DODDAHONNAIAH, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16108 MFA No. 605 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 513 of 2026 W/O B.K. KEMPALAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O BEGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK-572 130. 7. RAVIKUMAR M.N., S/O MAYANNA .N AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NO.23, LAKSHMI NILAYA, K. CHENNAPPA ROAD, NEAR RK HOSPITAL, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, ST. THOMAS TOWN, BANGALORE-560084. 8. RAMACHANDRAPPA N.M., S/O MAYANNA .N AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO.36, NAGASANDRA, K.G. TEMPLE POST, GUBBI RURAL, TUMAKURU-577216. 9. GOVINDARAJU B.K., S/O B.K. KEMPALAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O BEGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK-572 130. 10. YATHISHA B.K., S/O B.K. KEMPALAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O BEGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK-572 130. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PUNITH C., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.82/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16108 MFA No. 605 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 513 of 2026 THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT These two appeals arise out of O. S No. 82/2025 and are directed against two interlocutory orders passed on I.A No. V and I.A No. II respectively. MFA 605/2026 is preferred by the defendants No. 9 and 10 challenging the order whereby their application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC (I.A No. V) seeking temporary injunction came to be dismissed. MFA 513/2026 is also preferred by the defendants 9 and 10 calling in question the order passed on I.A. No. II, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction against the defendants 9 and 10 was allowed. Since both the appeals arise out of the same suit and involve interconnected issues, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this order. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16108 MFA No. 605 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 513 of 2026 BRIEF FACTS 2. The plaintiffs instituted O.S No. 82/2025 seeking partition, declaration and consequential reliefs in respect of suit schedule property, contending that the property is a joint family property of late Doddahonnaiah and that no partition has taken place among the co-sharers. It is their case that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 claim to have purchased a portion of the suit property from defendant Nos. 3 to 8 under a registered sale deed dated 12.11.2024 pursuant to an earlier agreement of sale and a compromise decree. Based on the said transaction, they assert that they are in possession of the property. In this backdrop the plaintiffs filed I.A No. II seeking injunction against defendant Nos. 9 and 10 which came to be allowed and the defendant Nos. 9 and 10 filed I.A No. V seeking injunction against the plaintiffs which came to be dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16108 MFA No. 605 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 513 of 2026 3. Sri Vighneshwar S Shastri, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the defendant Nos. 9 and 10 are the bona fide purchasers under a registered sale deed and they are in lawful and settled possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the registered sale deed, mutation entries, possession and improvements made and dismissal of I.A No. V and allowing of I.A No. II is contradictory and arbitrary, and that the plaintiffs have established possession. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that suit property is an undivided joint family property. There is no valid partition and the vendors had no exclusive right to convey specific portion to defendant Nos. 9 and 10 and that they are purchasers of undivided share. It is contended that the plaintiffs are in joint possession and hence entitled for protection, which has been rightly considered by the trial Court and allowed I.A No. II by protecting the joint - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16108 MFA No. 605 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 513 of 2026 possession and rejected defendants claim of exclusive possession by rejecting I.A No. V. 5. The trial Court while considering the applications has held that the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case and the suit schedule property is a joint family property and that the plaintiffs are in joint possession. While rejecting I.A. No. V, the trial Court observed that defendants 9 and 10 failed to establish the exclusive possession and about the partition among co-sharers. They cannot claim injunction against the other co-sharers and that no prima facie case is made out and rejected the application. 6. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged and perused the material on record. 7. A significant circumstance which goes against the defendants 9 and 10 is the judgment rendered by this Court in MFA 1568/2025 dated 26.06.2025, arising out of the very same transaction. In the said judgment this Court - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16108 MFA No. 605 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 513 of 2026 has held that the claim of the present appellants founded on the agreement of sale dated 15.04.2024, the compromise decree in O.S No. 170/2024 and the sale deed dated 12.11.2024 executed through a Court commissioner. After examining the nature of the property and the rights claimed by the purchaser, this Court has clearly held that the appellants had purchased only an undivided interest from some of the co-sharers and that there was no material to show that they were put in actual physical possession of any specific portion of the property. The relevant portion is extracted below for ready reference: "16. Having regard to the aforementioned factual matrix and legal position, it is clear that the appellants are claiming to be the owners to an extent 1 acre 4 guntas out of 2 acres 9.08 guntas (including 1.08 guntas kharab) in Sy.No.140/3 (old Sy.No.140/2) situated at Channapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District, and they have purchased the same from some of the co- owners of the family of the propositus vide Agreement of Sale dated 15.4.2024, compromise - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16108 MFA No. 605 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 513 of 2026 decree passed in O.S. No.170/2024 and Sale Deed dated 12.11.2024 executed during the course of proceedings in Ex. No.27/2024. There is no material on record to demonstrate as to whether they have been put into actual physical possession of any specific extent/portion of the property purchased by them. 17. The vehement contention put forth on behalf of the appellants that the execution proceedings are required to be closed, since the sale deed executed is required to be construed from the perspective that the possession claimed by the appellants pursuant to the sale deed dated 12.11.2024 is that of a co-owner claiming through the vendors of the agreement of sale dated 15.4.2024, is not liable to be accepted since the remaining co-owners, who are not parties to the agreement of sale dated 15.4.2024 and OS No.170/2024, having objected to the execution of decree have also filed OS No.82/2024. It is clear that the appellants herein have to initiate/participate in the appropriate legal proceedings for the purpose of claiming possession of any specified extent/portion of the property that has been purchased by them under the Sale Deed dated 12.11.2024. 18. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that OS No.82/2025 has been instituted for substantial - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16108 MFA No. 605 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 513 of 2026 reliefs, and the appellants as well as the respondents No.1 and 2 herein are the parties to the said suit. 19. Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 20. In view of the aforementioned, having regard to the fact that the sale deed dated 12.11.2024 has already been executed by the Executing Court in favour of the appellants/decree holders, it is just and proper that the present appeal be disposed of, directing closure of the execution proceedings with a specific observation that the appellants shall be entitled to claim possession of any specific portion/extent of the property purchased by them by claiming appropriate right, title and interest as co- owners claiming through their vendors vide the sale deed dated 12.11.2024 by participating in OS No.82/2025. It is further ordered that the respondents No.1 and 2 shall not be disturbed from possession of their property except in terms of the order that may be passed in OS No.82/2025." (emphasis supplied) 8. This Court held that the appellants (defendants 9 and 10) can work out their rights only by participating in OS No. 82/2025 and shall not be disturbed from the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16108 MFA No. 605 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 513 of 2026 possession except in terms of the order passed in OS No. 82/2025. 9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that against the judgment rendered by this Court in MFA 1568/2025, a Special Leave Petition in Diary No. 10653/2026 has been preferred before the Apex Court and the same is pending consideration. However, it is not in dispute that no interim order of stay has been granted by the Apex Court. 10. In the absence of any stay, the judgment rendered by this Court in MFA 1568/2025 continues to hold the field and is binding on the parties. The findings recorded therein which arise out of the very same transaction property and parties directly govern the controversy involved in the present appeals. 11. These findings recorded at the above referred paragraphs clearly negate the contention of the appellants that they are in exclusive possession of the suit property. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16108 MFA No. 605 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 513 of 2026 On the contrary, the said judgment affirms that their right is only that of a co-owner subject to adjudication in the partition suit. Apart from that, it is settled principle of law that a purchaser of an undivided share in a joint family property acquires only the right of the vendor and does not get possession of any specific portion unless partition is effected. Therefore, defendants 9 and 10 cannot claim exclusive possession merely on basis of a sale deed. The trial Court rightly exercised its discretion by allowing I.A No.II to protect joint possession and dismissing IA No. V as defendants failed to establish a prima facie case. The principles governing grant of injunction, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, injury has been properly applied. It is also well settled that an Appellate Court will not interfere with the discretionary order unless shown to be perverse or arbitrary. In the present case, the orders are well reasoned and is in accordance with law. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16108 MFA No. 605 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 513 of 2026 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appellants have failed to establish any prima facie case of exclusive possession also in light of the categorical findings in MFA 1568/2025, so as to seek an injunction in their favour in I.A No. V. Conversely, the plaintiffs being co-sharers in joint possession are entitled to protection of their possession and order passed on I.A No. II granting injunction is fully satisfied, warranting no interference and accordingly this Court pass the following: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeals are hereby dismissed. (ii) The order passed on I.A No. II and I.A No. V in O.S No. 82/2025 stands confirmed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75