- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23165 MFA No. 4958 of 2024 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.4958 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI SIDDA HANUMANTHAIAH S/O NANJAJAH @ NANJAPPA AND SMT. DODDAKKA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT KALLODU VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK. …APPELLANT (BY SRI UMA SHANKAR L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. DUGGALAMMA W/O LATE NANJAIAH @ NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, AADHAR NO.912666426636. 2. SRI DODDAIAH S/O. LATE NANJAIAH @ NANJAPPA AND SMT. DUGGALAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, AADHAR NO.370664465914. 3. SMT. MUNIYAMMA D/O. LATE NANJAIAH @ NANJAPPA AND SMT. DUGGALAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, AADHAR NO.652202657418. 4. SMT. AKKAYAMMA D/O. LATE NANJALAH @ NANJAPPA AND SMT. DUGGALAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23165 MFA No. 4958 of 2024 AADHAR NO.96238256182. 5. SRI MALLESH S/O. LATE NANJAIAH @ NANJAPPA AND SMT. DUGGALAMMA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, AADHAR NO.651196141910. 6. SRI KUMAR S/O. LATE NANJAIAH @ NANJAPPA AND SMT. DUGGALAMMA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, AADHAR NO.460171820961. 7. SMT. PUSHPA D/O. LATE NANJAIAH @ NANJAPPA AND SMT. DUGGALAMMA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT KALLODU VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK. 8. SMT. GANGALAKSHMAMMA @ AMMAIAH D/O NANJAIAH @ NANJAPPA AND SMT. DODDAKKA W/O BEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT H. GOLLAHALLI, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.782/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA, ALLOWING I.A.NO.I FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23165 MFA No. 4958 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal by defendant No.1 is directed against the order dated 16.04.2024 passed on I.A No. I in OS No. 782/2022 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, (‘the Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 came to be allowed, restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit. BRIEF FACTS 2. The plaintiffs instituted suit seeking declaration, partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties, contending that they are the lineal descendants of late Nanjappa and that the properties constitute Hindu joint family properties. It is their case that Panchayath Parikath dated 14.09.2011 allotted the suit properties to their share and that they are in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23165 MFA No. 4958 of 2024 possession thereof. It is further stated that the registered partition deed dated 13.07.2005 relied upon by the defendant No. 1 is fabricated document and the defendants are attempting to alienate the properties. 3. The defendants entered appearance and opposed the claim by contending that the suit properties are the joint family properties and the defendant No. 1 derives right under the partition deed dated 13.07.2005, said to have been effected after the death of Munishamappa, who had taken defendant No. 1 in adoption. Defendant No. 2 has also set up a claim for 1/7th share in the properties and disputed exclusive claim of the plaintiffs. 4. Pending suit, plaintiffs filed I.A No. I under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court by order dated 16.04.2024 allowed the said application and granted temporary injunction which is assailed in the present appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23165 MFA No. 4958 of 2024 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the Trial Court has committed an error in granting injunction without properly appreciating the material on record. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts and challenged the registered partition deed dated 13.07.2005 after an inordinate delay which itself disentitles them to equitable relief. It is contended that the Panchayath Parikath dated 14.09.2011 relied upon by the plaintiffs in fact recognizes earlier arrangements and cannot confer exclusive title. It is submitted that the Trial Court has failed to consider the aspect of limitation, delay and latches which go to the root of the grant of discretionary relief. It is submitted that there is no prima facie case and the plaintiffs have not established exclusive possession and the findings recorded by the Trial Court is mechanical and warranting interference by this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23165 MFA No. 4958 of 2024 6. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants interference by this Court? 7. The Trial Court upon consideration of the pleadings and documents, recorded that there exists a prima facie case, both sides rely upon competing partition deeds of 2005 and 2011, the validity of the said documents cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the interlocutory stage, and the nature of the property requires preservation till adjudication, and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, an injunction was granted. 8. At the outset it is to be noted that an appeal against an order granting or refusing temporary injunction is governed by settled principles laid down in Wander Ltd., Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.1 (Wander Ltd.), wherein the Apex Court has held at para number 14 as under : 1 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23165 MFA No. 4958 of 2024 “14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph: (SCR 721) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23165 MFA No. 4958 of 2024 “... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton ‘...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case’.” The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle.” 9. The Apex Court observed that the Appellate Court does not sit in appeal over the discretion of the Trial Court, but only examines whether such discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely or in disregard of settled principles of law. Unless the order suffers from such infirmities, the Appellate Court would not substitute its own discretion merely because another view is possible. 10. On careful re-appreciation of the material on record, this Court finds that the suit is one for partition - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23165 MFA No. 4958 of 2024 and separate possession, declaration and partition, and admittedly both parties rely upon rival documents of title. Such disputes necessarily require full-fledged trial. At an interlocutory stage, the Court is only required to see whether there exists a triable issue and not a conclusively determined title. The Trial Court has rightly observed that preservation of the suit property is essential till the rights are finally adjudicated. The Trial Court on considering all these aspects observed that where alienation is apprehended, maintaining status quo is appropriate to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Thus, the Trial Court has exercised its discretion judicially and in accordance with settled principles governing grant of injunction. The order of temporary injunction is justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following : - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23165 MFA No. 4958 of 2024 ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed. (ii) The impugned order dated 16.04.2024 passed on I.A No. I in OS No. 782/2022 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, is hereby confirmed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37