Karnataka High Court
Sri N Ashok vs Sri M Narasimhaiah ... on 19 February, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10392
MFA No. 676 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.676 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI N. ASHOK
S/O. M. NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT. BHARATH SPUN AND CONCRETE
PIPE FACTORY PREMISES,
SONNAPPANAHALLI,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-567124.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SREEVATSA SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.
SRI. NARASIMHA PRASAD S. D., ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed
by 1. SRI M. NARASIMHAIAH,
S/O. LATE. MUNISHAMAPPA,
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: High SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
Court of
1A. SMT. JAYAMMA
Karnataka,
Dharwad
Bench
W/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
R/AT. SONNAPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-567124.
2. SRI N. RAKASH
S/O .M. NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.8/1,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10392
MFA No. 676 of 2025
HC-KAR
CAUVERY THEATRE COMPLEX
PRIVATE LIMITED,. SANKEY ROAD,
PALACE GUTTAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560003.
3. SRI N. MUTHURAJU
S/O. M. NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT. BHARATH SPUN AND CONCRETE
POPE FACTORY PREMISES
SONNAPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-562157.
4. SMT. SUJATHA N.,
W/O. LATE SRINIVAS,
D/O. M. NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT. 'SHILPA' NO.866, ROYAL PARK,
SRINIVAS REDDY LAYOUT,
AVALAHALLI, ANJANAPURA POST,
BENGALURU-560062.
5. SRI N. ASHWATHNARAYANA,
S/O. LATE M. NAGAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
5A. SMT. R. INDRAMMA
W/O. LATE ASHWATHNARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
5B. VIJAYAKUMAR A.
S/O. LATE ASHWATHNARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.5A & 5B ARE
R/AT.BHARATH SPUN AND CONCRETE
POPE FACTORY PREMISES
SONNAPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-562157.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:10392
MFA No. 676 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. SRI N. RAGHU,
S/O. LATE M. NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT. BHARATH SPUN AND CONCRETE
POPE FACTORY PREMISES,
SONNAPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-562157.
7. SMT. NARASAMMA,
D/O. LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT.C/O.ASHWATHNARAYAN,
BHARATH SPUN AND CONCRETE
PIPE FACTORY PREMISES,
SONNAPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562157,
BENGALURU.
8. SMT. MUTHAMMA,
W/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
R/AT. C/O. L. RAVINDRA,
R/AT. BHARATH SPUN AND CONCRETE
PIPE FACTORY PREMISES,
SONNAPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-562157.
9. SMT. ANJINAMMA,
W/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT.C/O. L. PARTHA,
R/AT.BHARATH SPUN AND
CONCRETE PIPE FACTORY PREMISES,
SONNAPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-562157.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:10392
MFA No. 676 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. SRI L. RAVINDRA,
S/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT.BHARATH SPUN AND CONCRETE
PIPE FACTORY PREMISES,
SONNAPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-562157.
11. SRI L. MUNISWAMY,
S/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT.C/O.L.RAVINDRA,
BHARATH SPUN AND CONCRETE
PIPE FACTORY PREMISES,
SONNAPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-562157.
12. SRI L. PARTHA,
S/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT BHARATH SPUN AND CONCRETE
PIPE FACTORY PREMISES,
SONNAPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-562157.
13. SRI L. NAVEEN KUMAR S/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT. C/O. L. PARTHA,
BHARATH SPUN AND CONCRETE
PIPE FACTORY PREMISES,
SONNAPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-562157.
14. SMT. PARVATHI D/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
W/O. MUNNE GOWDA, MAJOR,
R/AT.VANI CONCRETE FACTORY,
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:10392
MFA No. 676 of 2025
HC-KAR
CHILKUNDA VILLAGE,
HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.
15. DR. HEMAVATHI D/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
MAJOR, R/AT.NO.12,
MOUNT VIEW ENCLAVE,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562157.
16. SMT. SHASHIKALA D/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH
W/O. S. K. SOMASHEKAR,
MAJOR, R/AT.NO.235, 9TH CROSS,
K.R.PURAM, HASSAN-573201.
17. SMT. ROOPA D/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
MAJOR, R/AT. C/O. PARTHA,
BHARATH SPUN AND CONCRETE
PIPE FACTORY PREMISES,
SONNAPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-562157.
18. SRI ARJUN S/O. C. ASHWATHNARAYANA, MAJOR,
R/AT. HEMAVATHI SPUN CONCRETE
PIPE FACTORY, KANDALI VILLAGE,
KANDALLI POST,
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
19. SMT. NETHRAVATHI D/O. C. ASHWATHNARAYANA,
W/O. PARTHA, MAJOR,
R/AT. BHARATH SPUN AND
CONCRETE PIPE FACTORY PREMISES,
SONNAPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-562157.
20. SMT. THARA D/O. C. ASHWATHNARAYANA,
W/O. SRINIVASA GOWDA, MAJOR,
R/AT.NO.4, MOUNT VIEW ENCLAVE,
BETAHALASURU POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562157.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:10392
MFA No. 676 of 2025
HC-KAR
21. SMT. CHAITHRA D/O. C. ASHWATHNARAYANA,
W/O. VIJAYAKUMAR, MAJOR,
R/AT. BHARATH SPUN AND
CONCRETE PIPE FACTORY PREMISES,
SONNAPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
BETTAHALASURU POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-562157.
22. SRI RAMACHANDRA S/O. GURUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT. SRIKANTAPURA, MATHURUMAJARE,
NIDIGE HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK.
23. SRI NARASIMHE GOWDA S/O. JAVARE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT. SIDDARAHALLI VILLAGE,
MATHURUMAJARE, NIDIGE HOBLI,
SHIMOGA TALUK.
24. SRI SWAMY GOWDA S/O. SIDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT. SIDDARAHALLI VILLAGE, MATHURUMAJARE,
NIDIGE HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK.
25. SMT. AARADHANA JHUNJHUN WALA,
W/O. SRI SUDHIR JHUNJHUNWALA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.3/1/1, ALI ASKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER
SRI P. V. RAMAKRISHNAN,
S/O. K. V. SHANKARAVARIER,
R/AT.NO.280, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
JAGADISHNAGAR, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST,
BENGALURU-75.
26. SMT. P. B. ARATHI,
W/O. SRI N. MUTHURAJ,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT.SONNAPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BETTAHALASURU POST, JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:10392
MFA No. 676 of 2025
HC-KAR
27. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED HEADQUARTERS AT:
29TH AND 30TH FLOOR WORLD TRADE CENTER,
BRIGADE GATEWAY COMPUS,
NO.26/1, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560055, INDIA.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE, MR. VARUN TALLAM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D. R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
DR. P. M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R2, R6 & R10;
SRI SRINIVASA RAGHVAN V., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI HARSHA GUPTA, ADV.FOR R27;
SRI A. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, ADV. FOR R14 TO R17;
NOTICE TO R1(A), R3, R4, R5(A), R5(B), R9, R12, R19, R20,
R21, R24, R26 ARE SERVED;
NOTICE TO R11 HELD SUFFICIENT;
NOTICE TO R13, R23 AND R25 ARE DISPENSED WITH;
NOTICE TO R18 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
NOTICE TO R7, R8 AND R22 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND EXAMINE THE SAME
AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.12.2024 IN
O.S.NO.3248/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IX ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU IN DISMISSING APPLICATION
FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION BY ALLOWING
THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THIS COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:10392
MFA No. 676 of 2025
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order passed on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081, in O.S.No.3248/2012 dated 07.12.2024, on the file of IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, thereby, the application seeking grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction or from changing the nature of the suit schedule item No.26 was dismissed.
2. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in the suit schedule 'A' properties and 1/3rd share out of the said 1/5th share in suit schedule 'B' properties along with other consequential reliefs.
3. The application for temporary injunction pertains only to suit schedule item No.26, namely, property bearing 1 Hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC' -9- NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR No.20/B situated at Aramane Nagar, Guttahalli Bangalore (Cauvery Theatre), measuring to an extent of 45622 sq.ft2. In support of the application, in the affidavit it is deposed that in the Memorandum of Agreement dated 19.07.2023, the plaintiff's name was shown, but signature was left blank, hence the plaintiff has not consented for agreement.
4. It is further deposed that, in the meantime, the defendants have entered into a Joint Development Agreement with proposed respondent No.27, M/s. Brigade Enterprises Limited, and therefore, the defendants have no independent right to enter into such Joint Development Agreement in respect of the appeal schedule property. If any construction is made, it would deprive the right of the plaintiff to claim his share in the appeal schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the application seeking grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from 2 Hereinafter referred to as the 'appeal schedule property'
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR putting up any construction or changing the appeal schedule property pending disposal of the suit.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Sreevatsa for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the appeal schedule property is joint family property and not the exclusive property of a company known as "Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited". Therefore, the plaintiff, being a co-sharer/Member of the Joint Family, is entitled to a share in the appeal schedule property. It is further contended that permitting any construction on the appeal schedule property would affect and deprive the plaintiff and defendants No.14 to 17, who are sisters of their legitimate shares. Hence, he prayed for an order of temporary injunction.
6. It is further submitted that, with reference to the admission of DW.1, during the course of cross- examination held on 29.06.2024, DW.1 has admitted that the Board Resolution of the Company has not been
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR produced before the Court. It is also admitted that L. Ravindra, Raghu and Prakash executed power of attorney to respondent No.27. Learned Senior Counsel stressed that DW.1 has admitted that the appeal schedule property is a joint family property. Therefore, when a prima facie case is made out establishing that the appeal schedule property is joint family property, any alteration in the nature of the property would cause deprivation of claiming legitimate shares by other members of joint family, who are sisters including the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the defendants have executed a joint development agreement with proposed respondent No.27, M/s Brigade Enterprises Limited, which constrained the plaintiff to file an application for temporary injunction to protect both the property and lawful shares of plaintiff and defendants Nos.14 to 17 (sisters/daughters). However, these crucial aspects were not properly considered by the Trial Court while adjudicating the application for temporary injunction.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. It is further submitted that in the Memorandum of Agreement dated 19.07.2023 entered into between the Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited and respondent No.27, Brigade Enterprises Limited, the plaintiff has not affixed his signature confirming the joint development agreement. It is further submitted that the said Memorandum of Agreement dated 19.07.2023 was executed during the pendency of the suit. However, in the said agreement, the Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited has recited that the appeal schedule property is not the subject matter of any litigation or proceedings before any Court of law or authority, which is contrary to the admitted fact that the appeal schedule property forms part of the subject matter of litigation of present suit for partition. Therefore, the said agreement, having been executed during the pendency of the suit, is not a bonafide transaction and is intended solely to deprive the plaintiff and other co-sharers of their legitimate shares.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. It is further submitted that respondent No.27, M/s Brigade Enterprises Limited, issued a public notice published in Times of India, informing the public of its proposed joint venture. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff issued a reply notice to respondent No.27. Despite the same, respondent No.27, M/s Brigade Enterprises Limited, proceeded to execute joint development agreement. Such conduct clearly demonstrates lack of bonafides and amounts to a deliberate attempt to prejudice and diminish the plaintiff's and other female members of joint family lawful claim to their legitimate shares in the appeal schedule property.
9. Further, it is submitted that in the said joint development agreement, in the annexure containing the list of original title documents, at Sl.No.16 dated 22.07.1971, reference is made to a deed of partnership executed among Nagappa, M. Lakshmaiah, M. Narasimiah and Aswathnarayan and N. Raghu. When this being the fact, although the defendants contended that the appeal
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR schedule property exclusively belongs to Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited, it is evident that upon reconstitution of the deed of partnership on 01.04.1985, the plaintiff was also inducted as one of the partners. Therefore, the plaintiff has a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience to show that the appeal schedule property is joint family property. In view of the same, the plaintiff has a prima facie case and balance of convenience to claim a share in the appeal schedule property. However, the defendants, without the knowledge of the plaintiff and behind his back, have entered into a joint venture agreement with respondent No.27, M/s. Brigade Enterprises Limited, which is nothing but an attempt to deny the legitimate share of the plaintiff. Such conduct clearly demonstrates the lack of bona fides on the part of respondent No.27 and other defendants. This aspect has not been property appreciated by the Trial Court while considering the application for grant of
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR temporary injunction. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and grant an order of temporary injunction.
10. Learned counsel, Sri. Sreevatsa, places reliance on the following judgments:
(i) Marirudraiah and Others Vs. B. Sarojamma and Others3;
(ii) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Subhash Kumar Singh Tomar4;
(iii) Chander Bhan (D) through Lr Sher Singh Vs. Mukhtiar Singh and Others5;
11. Learned counsel, Sri. A Madhusudhan Rao, appearing for respondents No.14 to 17 (defendants No.14 to 17), argued in line with the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited was purchased through four sale deeds and constitutes joint family property. He further 3 (2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 710 4 (2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 713 5 2024 SCC Online SC 761
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR submitted that respondents No.14 to 17 are not parties to the joint development agreement dated 19.07.2023, which is a fraudulent act intended to deprive the legitimate shares of the plaintiff and respondents No.14 to 17. The property, in which, Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited exist belongs to the joint family.
12. It is further submitted that respondents No.14 to 17 were not parties to the meeting held wherein the other defendants allegedly resolved to enter into a mutual understanding. Therefore, whatever memorandum of agreements arrived at with respondent No.27 is nothing but a transaction hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, as the suit is already pending for consideration and the appeal schedule property is joint family property. Respondent No.27 has issued a legal notice dated 11.08.2023, which was replied by notice dated 17.08.2023.
13. But in the memorandum of agreement, it is falsely contended that no litigation was pending. However,
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR when the suit is pending, the defendants entered into a joint development agreement and memorandum of agreement dated 19.07.2023, which clearly constitutes a lis pendens transaction and cannot be entertained. Therefore, it is contended that any transaction entered into during lis pendens cannot prejudice the rights of co- sharers of the joint family, whose interest are required to be protected. Hence, prays for grant of an order of temporary injunction.
14. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel, Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, appearing for respondents No.2, 6 and 10 submitted that the appeal schedule property (Item No.24 in the suit schedule property), is not included in the partition dated 02.05.2000. Therefore, the appeal schedule property is not the joint family property. It is submitted that the Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited consisting of Directors, Managing Director and the plaintiff is also one of the Director of the company receiving a monthly remuneration of Rs.15,000/- and
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR Rs.7,250/- canteen remuneration, and annually sharing the profits and losses among the directors and same has been clearly accounted and proper books of account are maintained and the plaintiff is also visiting to the said theatre and he is also one of the director participating in the meetings and signed the minuts book and books of account, by accepting the books of account. It is further submitted that there is no question of misusing and not properly accounting does not at all arise for consideration, since there is an internal and external auditor maintaining the account books and submitting the same to the registrar of company, income tax, sales tax and other concerned department, for which, the plaintiff is also a part and parcel of the participant, and the question of partition in respect of private limited company does not at all arise for consideration and the apportionment of share in respect of private limited company having its own rules contemplated under the Company Law. Therefore,
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR submitted that the appeal schedule property is not the joint family property and thus not amenable for partition.
15. It is further submitted that the Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited passed a resolution dated 12.07.2023 in the Board Meeting held on the said date, wherein the Board discussed and decided to select a Joint Development Partner. In the said meeting, the joint development proposal with Brigade Group (proposed respondent No.27) was considered and approved, and a resolution to that effect was duly passed. Therefore, the plaintiff, being a Director of the Company, was present at the said meeting and has affixed his signature to the resolution dated 12.07.2023, which amounts to his unequivocal acceptance and consent to the said resolution. Therefore, the plaintiff himself has consented to the joint development and construction of a commercial building in Item No.26 of the suit schedule property (appeal schedule property).
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
16. Further submitted that the terms mentioned supra in the said agreement are binding on the plaintiff, and pursuant to such consent, the Cavery Theatre building was demolished. However, despite having passed such resolution and being a signatory thereto, the plaintiff has subsequently resigned and is now objecting to the construction, which clearly amounts to approbation and reprobation. Therefore, by this, the plaintiff has prima facie accepted the joint development, and his conduct establishes that the suit schedule property is not excluded from the joint venture. Hence, the plaintiff is deemed to have given his consent to the joint development venture, as he is also one of the beneficiaries of the said joint development.
17. It is further submitted that if a commercial complex is constructed on the appeal schedule property and is developed, then in the event the suit is decreed, the plaintiff would also be entitled to one of the share that will be beneficial to him and also to defendants No.14 to 17.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR However, objection to the very construction of the building itself clearly shows his intention to prevent any progress or development with the appeal schedule property.
18. It is submitted that the Memorandum of Association at Clause Nos.8 and 9 are very clearly enabling the parties to unite, co-operate, amalgamate or enter into partnerships for development etc., in the interest of the property. When the plaintiff is also a beneficiary in the said partnership firm, but objecting for construction of commercial complex over the property, which shows the malafide intention of the plaintiff causing inconvenience to other family members in order to see not to get fruits out of commercial complex.
19. Further submitted that there is a recital in the Memorandum of Association that the property can be demolished and to reconstruct the building thereon either commercial or residential complex for the benefit of the company represented by its directors. The plaintiff, being
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR one of the Director in the company, and is also beneficiary of receiving monthly remuneration, etc., therefore, the plaintiff is estopped from objecting and making further development over the suit schedule property. Therefore, submitted that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the plaintiff, as it is filed with oblique motive. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.
20. There is a joint development agreement between the Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited Company and M/s. Brigade Enterprises Limited, the proposed respondent No.27. The proposed respondent No.27 was not a party to the suit and has therefore filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19086, seeking impleadment. As per respondents No.2, 6 and 10 (defendant Nos.2, 6 and 10), they have entered into a joint development agreement with the proposed 6 Hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR respondent No.27. Although the proposed respondent No.27 is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff and other defendants, by virtue of the joint development agreement, the proposed respondent No.27 seeks to be impleaded in the appeal.
21. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Srinivasa Raghavan, appearing for the Brigade Enterprises, the proposed respondent No.27, submitted that the plaintiff, being a Director of the Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited, does not have any specific claim or ascertainable share in the appeal schedule property. Therefore the plaintiff does not have locus standi to seek partition of the appeal schedule property, as the said property belongs to Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited. The plaintiff, being one of the Directors of the company, had affixed his signatures to the joint development agreement executed with Brigade Enterprises, the proposed respondent No.27. Therefore the proposed respondent No.27 is a necessary party in the appeal and also in the suit.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
22. It is submitted that the application for impleadment has been filed and is pending consideration in the suit. It is further submitted that the company is a separate legal entity, distinct from its share holders and that the property owned by the company is the property of the company itself and that of the shareholders. It is further submitted that the plaintiff, being a signatory to the Board of Resolution, is estopped from contending that the Cauvery Theatre is also a joint family property. Since the order passed on the application would directly affect the rights of the proposed respondent No.27, therefore the applicant prays to allow the application and seeks permission to implead as respondent No.27 in the appeal. Hence, prays to allow the application and dismiss the application filed for temporary injunction.
23. Further, it is submitted that the proposed respondent No.27 has incurred an expenditure of Rs.30 crores towards construction of the complex under the joint development venture. At this stage, if an order of
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR temporary injunction is granted, it would cause irreparable loss and injury, as it would adversely affect the construction of complex and destroy the value of the property. Therefore prays for allowing the application for impleadment.
24. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Srinivasa Raghavan appearing for the impleading applicant relies on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are as follows:
i) Acqua Borewell Private Limited Vs. Swayam Prabha and Others7.
ii) Rachappa Sathish Kumar and Another Vs. M/s. Eaglesight Media Private Limited and Others8.
iii) Ramesh Kumar Bhagchandka Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhagchandka9.
iv) Vijay Nahar Vs. Anil Nahar and Another10.7
(2022) 15 SCC 511 8 W.P.No.13365/2025 decided on 25.06.2025 9 2014 SCC Online Del 1324
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
v) Sunil Siddharthbhai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, Gujarat11
25. Having heard the arguments from both the parties, the following points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the impleading applicant, namely, Brigade Enterprises makes sufficient grounds to implead in the appeal as respondent No.27?
(ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff makes out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the Trial Court so as to grant order of temporary injunction?
(iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff makes out case of balance of convenience on the basis of the materials 10 C.S.No.86/2024 decided on 08.11.2024 11 (1985) 4 SCC 519
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR produced before the Trial Court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction?
(iv) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiff would suffer any irreparable loss or injury?
(v) Whether the order passed by the Trial court in declining to grant injunction suffers any perversity or illegality?
Point No.(i)
26. The impleading applicant/proposed respondent No.27 (Brigade Enterprises Limited) has filed the application I.A.No.2 of 2025 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to come on record as respondent No.27 on the ground that the proposed respondent No.27 (Brigade Enterprises Limited) has entered into a joint development agreement on 06.12.2023 with M/s. Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited represented by defendant Nos.2, 6 and 10.
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
27. The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of certain properties, including the appeal schedule property. M/s. Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited Company and Brigade Enterprises Limited have entered into a memorandum of agreement dated 19.07.2023 contending that the company has passed a resolution for construction of a commercial complex on the appeal schedule property, for which the plaintiff was also made a party and put his signature as confirming director. Though the plaintiff has denied that he has put his signature as confirming director, upon considering the resolution passed in the board of meeting held on 19.07.2023 to discuss and choose the joint development partner, there was a proposal to go with Brigade Enterprises Limited for joint development, in which the resolution was passed and contains signature of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, it is a forged one, but it appears that there is a signature in the said board meeting resolution. Whether signature is forged is matter for trial
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR and at this stage, not to be decided on this aspect of forgery. Hence, M/s. Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited Company has entered into an agreement of joint venture and ultimately a joint development agreement executed on 06.12.2023 with Brigade Enterprises Limited. In what way the said joint venture affects the right of the plaintiff and other defendants is different aspect, but with respect to the property which is the subject matter in the suit, after filing of the suit and during pendency of the suit, this joint development agreement is executed. Therefore, Brigade Enterprises Limited is found to be a necessary party in this appeal proceedings because whatever orders are to be passed will directly affect Brigade Enterprises Limited; hence, Brigade Enterprises Limited is not only a proper party, but also a necessary party.
28. After filing the suit, after 10 years, the plaintiff has filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants and Brigade Enterprises Limited
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR from putting up any construction or changing the nature of appeal schedule property; therefore, when this is the relief claimed, the Brigade Enterprises Limited is found to be a necessary party having right to participate in this appeal.
29. It is contention of the plaintiff that the appeal schedule property is joint family property, but the directors of M/s. Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited are contending that it is not joint family property. Whether the appeal schedule property is joint family property or not is a question to be considered in the suit, but M/s. Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited has entered into a joint development agreement with Brigade Enterprises and the prayer sought for in the application is not to put any construction or change the nature of land which directly affects proposed respondent No.27. Therefore, by virtue this, Brigade Enterprises Limited is found to be necessary party in this appeal.
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
30. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.27/Brigade Enterprises Limited that the plaintiff has suppressed the fact that he is one of the directors of M/s. Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited and he is also a signatory to the board of resolution dated 12.07.2023 and the same is disputed by the plaintiff. But it is the case of Brigade Enterprises Limited that the property on which M/s. Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited was in existence was offered to Brigade Enterprises Limited for joint development. In this regard, copies of board resolution, memorandum of agreement and joint development agreement are produced; therefore, Brigade Enterprises Limited is also to be arrayed as a party in this appeal as found to be necessary party.
31. The plaintiff has claimed a temporary injunction against the defendants, though Brigade Enterprises Limited is not a party in the suit. In this appeal, whatever orders are passed will affect Brigade Enterprises Limited.
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR According to Sri. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Brigade Enterprises, the company has invested more than Rs.100 crores in planning, operationalizing and executing the joint development of the said property and also spent about Rs.30 crores towards demolition of the existing structure and excavation of the lands etc., and engaged various sub-contractors for various works, as deposed in the affidavit at Paragraph No.12 of I.A.No.2 of 2025 filed for impleading the applicant/proposed respondent No.27 as respondent No.27 in this appeal. Further submitted that the property is excavated for depth of about 20 to 30 feet and if this is not filled with construction during rainy season it will be filled up with water, in such an event, the entire property and surrounding properties will be severely damaged. Hence, Brigade Enterprises Limited is found to have a legitimate interest in this appeal and therefore, it is necessary to implead Brigade Enterprises Limited as a party in the appeal. Accordingly, Brigade Enterprises
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR Limited is permitted to come on record as respondent No.27. Thus, the application I.A.No.2 of 2025 filed for impleading the proposed respondent No.27 as respondent No.27 in this appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2025 is allowed and the Brigade Enterprises Limited is permitted to participate in the appeal proceedings.
32. Further, Sri. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Brigade Enterprises Limited addressed arguments on the application I.A.No.2 of 2025 filed for impleading the applicant as respondent No.27, but also on merits in the appeal explaining how the appeal filed for temporary injunction and why the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer point No.(i) in the affirmative as Brigade Enterprises Limited is also a necessary party as respondent No.27 in this appeal. Point Nos.(ii) to (iv)
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
33. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession.
34. It is vehemently submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff that the appeal schedule property is joint family property and not the property of the company. Therefore, there exists a rival dispute regarding the nature of the property. It is pertinent to mention here that in the context of the nature of property, DW.1 has admitted in cross-examination that the appeal schedule property is joint family property and that all members have rights over it.
35. Admittedly, the Cauvery Theatre Complex building has been demolished and this dispute regarding whether it is joint family property or whether it is company property is yet to be adjudicated in the trial. The defendants contend that in the resolution dated 12.07.2023 pertaining to Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited, the plaintiff participated and his signature appears in the said
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR resolution, but the learned counsel for the plaintiff disputes the said signature, alleging that it has been forged by mentioning his name. At this stage, it cannot be determined whether the plaintiff is a signatory to the said resolution or not. It is to be determined in the trial. The defendants are making efforts to develop the property.
36. The learned Senior Counsels, Sri. D.R. Ravishankar and Sri. Srinivasa Raghavan submitted that if the appeal schedule property is developed as per the joint development agreement for construction of a commercial complex, then the plaintiff and other co-sharers would also be benefited and no prejudice or harm would be caused to the rights of plaintiff and defendants No.14 to 17. Therefore, it is prayed that the defendants be permitted to proceed with development of property, subject to the result of the suit and in accordance with Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 188212. Much argument is 12 Hereinafter referred to as the 'T.P. Act'
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR advanced regarding the internal affairs of the Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited, including its assets, liabilities and profit sharing. However, discussion of the company's internal affairs is unnecessary at this stage. The question for consideration in this regard is, what would be the effect granting or refusing an injunction? Whose rights would be prejudiced by such grant or refusal is alone to be considered in this appeal.
37. As submitted by both the learned Senior Counsels, the entire Cauvery Theater Complex is demolished and earthwork has commenced and at this stage, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction, which was refused by the Trial Court. By virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, the earthwork relating to the construction has been stopped. Whether the appeal schedule property is joint family property or exclusively the property of the company is a matter to be adjudicated in full-fledged trial. In this context, the
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR propriety of granting or refusing temporary injunction must be appreciated.
38. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that during the pendency of the suit, an agreement dated 19.07.2023 was entered into with Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited and questioned bonafideness of other defendants and proposed respondent No.27, Brigade Enterprises. When different transactions are entered into during pendency of a suit, Section 52 of the T.P. Act is attracted; however such transactions cannot be termed as void transactions. Section 52 of the T.P. Act protects the rights of co-sharers. In the present case, construction has just commenced but is not completed. Though Clause-D of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 19.07.2023 states that no litigation is pending, but admittedly the said agreement was executed during pendency of the suit. Such transactions are subject to the result of the suit but are not void.
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
39. In this regard, I place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Seth Vs. Devinder Bajaj and Other13, which reads as under:
41. Having found that the direction of the High Court is unsustainable, let us next examine whether we can give any relief to defendants within the four corners of law. The reason for the High Court directing the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking to pay damages in the event of failure in the suit, is that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would apply to the suit property and the pendency of the suit interfered with the defendant's right to enjoy or deal with the property. Section 52 of the TP Act provides that during the pendency in any court of any suit in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceedings so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose. The said section incorporates the well-known principle of lis pendens 13 (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR which was enunciated in Bellamy v. Sabine [1857 (1) De G & J 566 : 44 ER 842] "It is, as I think, a doctrine common to the Courts both of law and equity, and rests, as I apprehend, upon this foundation - that it would plainly be impossible that any action or suit could be brought to a successful termination, if alienations pendente lite were permitted to prevail. The plaintiff would be liable in every case to be defeated by the defendant's alienating before the judgment or decree, and would be driven to commence his proceedings de novo, subject again to be defeated by the same course of proceeding."
42. It is well-settled that the doctrine of lis pendens does not annul the conveyance by a party to the suit, but only renders it subservient to the rights of the other parties to the litigation. Section 52 will not therefore render a transaction relating to the suit property during the pendency of the suit void but render the transfer inoperative insofar as the other parties to the suit. Transfer of any right, title or interest in the suit property or the consequential acquisition of any right, title or interest, during the pendency of the suit will be subject to the decision in the suit.
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
43. The principle underlying section 52 of TP Act is based on justice and equity. The operation of the bar under section 52 is however subject to the power of the court to exempt the suit property from the operation of section 52 subject to such conditions it may impose. That means that the court in which the suit is pending, has the power, in appropriate cases, to permit a party to transfer the property which is the subject-matter of the suit without being subjected to the rights of any part to the suit, by imposing such terms as it deems fit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the suit property should be exempted from the operation of Section 52 of the TP Act, subject to a condition relating to reasonable security, so that the defendants will have the liberty to deal with the property in any manner they may deem fit, inspite of the pendency of the suit.
40. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and respondents No.14 to 17 (defendants No.14 to 17) also referred to the public notice issued by respondent No.27 in the Times of India, to which the plaintiff replied. Though the Memorandum of
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR Agreement is subject to the result of the suit, but certainly it cannot be termed as void transaction.
41. The cross-examination of PW.1 (plaintiff) reveals that he admitted being one of the Directors of Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited and being aware of developments relating to the Theatre. Whether he attended the meeting held on 12.07.2023 and signed the resolution is a matter to be considered in the trial. Prima facie, it is revealed that the plaintiff is also one of the Directors of the company. Therefore, even if construction is made, the plaintiff and defendants No.14 to 17 would benefit in the event the suit is decreed. Hence, the Trial Court was correct in refusing temporary injunction.
42. It is also noted that the application for temporary injunction was filed when the suit was posted for further cross-examination of DW.1.
43. Learned counsel for defendants No.14 to 17 submitted that the Cavery Theatre Complex was
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR purchased through four sale deeds dated 21.07.1969 and is therefore joint family property. It is contended that there is no material to show conversion of the property into partnership property or company property. Even if such submissions are considered, adjudicating regarding the nature of property must take place at trial.
44. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendants No.2, 6 and 10 and respondent No.27 referred to the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 12.07.1923 as well as the records of Board meetings held on various dates, to demonstrate that the appellant was present at all such meetings. When this being the fact, the question as to whether the plaintiff attended the Board Meetings or not is a matter to be considered during trial. Furthermore, if property is developed, the plaintiff and defendants No.14 to 17 would also be entitled to their respective shares in the event the suit is decreed in respect of the appeal schedule property. In this regard, the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case and balance of convenience to
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR grant an order of injunction halting the development of property.
45. Further, learned Senior Counsels appearing for respondents No.2, 6, 10 and respondent No.27, namely Shri. D.R. Ravishankar and Sri. Srinivasa Raghavan, also referred to the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 30.10.2022, wherein the directors unanimously decided and accepted to invite a suitable and reliable developer for joint development, for which, referred the signature of plaintiff at Sl.No.6 in the said resolution. It was therefore contended that the plaintiff cannot approbate and reprobate. On the other hand it is contended that the plaintiff attended the board meeting and consented to the selection of a new developer for the development of the property in question; but contrary, he has filed the present suit seeking an order of temporary injunction to halt the development of the property. This disputed fact is to be adjudicated at the trial but not in this appeal.
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
46. There is a considerable force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel that although the suit was filed in the year 2012, the plaintiff subsequently attended the board meetings and consented to the development of the appeal schedule property as a signatory to the resolution. The filing of the application for temporary injunction, therefore, amounts to blowing hot and cold at the same time. Whether the plaintiff attended the Board meetings and was a signatory to the decisions taken therein are matters to be adjudicated in the suit while determining the nature of the property. However, prima facie, the defendants have prima facie shown the active involvement of the plaintiff in the process of development of the property.
47. Learned Senior Counsels also highlighted the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 10.03.2013, in which the plaintiff participated. Though these documents are to be tested in a full-fledged trial, the plaintiff has failed to show, prima facie, how commencement of
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR construction would cause prejudice to him or to defendant Nos.14 to 17.
48. Further, attention was drawn to the resolution dated 02.04.2023, wherein it was resolved that the offer made by Bagmane Developers was rejected due to their failure to submit a technical feasibility report. The company thereafter received offers from different builders and one of whom was respondent No.27. Subsequent resolutions dated 18.06.2023 and 12.07.2023 reveal that respondent No.27, Brigade Enterprises, was selected for development of the appeal schedule property, and the plaintiff is stated to be a signatory to these resolutions as well. Hence, the plaintiff has failed to show prima facie case and balance of convenience lies in his favour so as to warrant grant of temporary injunction.
49. It is worthwhile to refer to paragraph No.4(b) of the memorandum of appeal, wherein it is stated that DW.1 admitted that Bharat Enterprises was subsequently
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR merged into Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited, in which male members, including the appellant, are Directors. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the plaintiff is one of the Directors of Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited. It is the grievance of the plaintiff and defendants No.14 to 17 that the signatures of female members were not obtained before entering into the Memorandum of Agreement. It is contended that defendants No.2, 6 and 10 alone had no authority to enter into such an agreement, particularly during the pendency of the suit.
50. As discussed above and in the light of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding Section 52 of the T.P. Act, whatever development undertaken in respect of suit property shall be subject to result of the suit. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the rights of the plaintiff or other female members of the joint family.
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
51. Construction is at the stage of commencement and no further development is taken place. If the appeal schedule property is kept idle and the suit is decreed, then at the most, the plaintiff and defendants No.14 to 17 would get undeveloped shares. Suppose the appeal schedule property is developed and the suit is decreed in respect of appeal schedule property, then the plaintiff and defendants No.14 to 17 would be benefited of developed portions. Therefore, if order of temporary injunction is not granted then there would not be any loss or injury to the plaintiff and defendants No.14 to 17 rather they would be benefited.
52. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Srinivasa Ragahavan, submitted that respondent No.27 had invested considered amount of Rs.30 crores and if at this stage, if construction activities are stopped then it would cause more loss and injury to respondent No.27. Therefore, prayed not to grant of temporary injunction.
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
53. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Marirudraiah (referred supra) the facts are that the pendente lite purchasers have filed an application seeking permission to bring them on record as additional respondents and the same is allowed by the High Court and the suit was ended with compromise. In the regular first appeal it was observed, the suit item No.9 cannot be divided by metes and bounds. Therefore, the said dispute is relegated to the final decree proceedings. It is directed that the impleaded respondents can workout equity before the Trial Court in the final decree proceedings.
54. Being aggrieved, the respondents No.1 and 2 therein filed a memo for 'being spoken to' and the High Court had observed that since the purchasers have stepped into the shoes of the appellants, the plaintiffs share has to be ascertained and while working out the equity, the share of the plaintiffs in item No.9 therein shall be compensated in terms of money by considering the market value by the appellants who have sold the property
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR to respondents No.4 and 5, which is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this context, it is observed at paragraph No.15 herein under:
"15. It is relevant to point out that Respondents 8 and 9 herein purchased Item 9 from the first respondent herein pendent elite. In fact, the courts are not supposed to encourage pendente lite transactions and regularise their conduct by showing equity in their favour. In such circumstances, we are of the view that it is but proper to relegate all the issues in the final decree proceedings and in the case on hand, the same is pending before the trial court."
55. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the direction for payment of compensation to the plaintiff and others and working out equity are set aside and permitted the parties to put forth their claim by way of separate application before the trial court in the final decree proceedings.
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
56. Considering the factual matrix involved in the present case, the above citation is not applicable to the present set of facts. It is correct that there should not be encouragement of pendente lite transactions. The pendente lite transactions in the above said case is that purchase made pendente lite, but in the present case, there is no sale transaction, but is only regarding development of property.
57. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsels, Sri. D.R. Ravishankar and Sri. Srinivasa Raghavan that instead of keeping pending the property idle for decades together, let there be improvement and all the sharers will get benefited as per their shares even in a developed portion also. Therefore, having considered difference in factual matrix involved in the above cited case and in the present case, the above cited case is not applicable in the present appeal.
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
58. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chander Bhan (D) Through Lr Sher Singh (referred supra) is dealing with the principles of law laid down in Sections 41 and 52 of the T.P. Act. It is observed at paragraph Nos.15 and 16 herein under:
15. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the benefit of which is being claimed by both parties. Section 41 of the Act of 1882 which governs the principle of bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration is reproduced below:
"41. Transfer by ostensible owner.--Where, with the consent, express or implied, of the persons interested in immovable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for consideration, the transfer shall not be voidable on the ground that the transferor was not authorised to make it:
Provided that the transferee, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith."
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR Similarly, Section 52 of the 1882 Act governs the principle of lis pendens and is reproduced below:
"52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.--During the [pendency] in any Court having authority [within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir] or established beyond such limits] by [the Central Government, of [any] suit or proceeding [which is not collusive and] in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.
[Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order, and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force.]"
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
16. The object underlying the doctrine of lis pendens is for maintaining status quo that cannot be affected by an act of any party in a pending litigation. The objective is also to prevent multiple proceedings by parties in different forums. The principle is based on equity and good conscience. This Court has clarified this position in a catena of cases. Reference may be made here of some, such as: Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh [Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh, (1973) 2 SCC 705] ; Dev Raj Dogra v. Gyan Chand Jain (1981) 2 SCC 675] ; Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramanlal Udhoji Tanna (2013) 10 SCC 258 .
59. Where there is pendente lite transfer through sale, in such an event, the rights of sharers will be affected. Once sale transactions are made pendente lite, then the rights of sharers will be affected. However, in the present case, it is not a sale transaction, but is only development of property. If once the property is developed without keeping the property idle, in such an event the decree is passed, all the sharers being members of the joint family will also be benefited of development of property. Once property is developed, the price of
- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR property would be escalated. Then, after decree, the sharers/co-sharers will also be entitled to shares in the developed property and also will be benefited at escalated price. Therefore, having difference in the factual matrix of the aforesaid case and in the present case, the above principles of law laid down is not applicable in the case on hand.
60. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for respondents No.2, 6, 10 and 27 submitted that the Cauvery Theatre Complex was demolished and excavation was started and when complete excavation was done, till that time, the plaintiff remained silent and when earthwork to be carried out and diaphragm wall was about to be constructed, the plaintiff has filed the instant application for injunction.
61. It is further submitted that if really the plaintiff had intention to protect the property, he would not have waited until the excavation was completed but would have
- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR approached the Court immediately at the initial stage itself when digging was started. It is further submitted that the property has already been excavated to a depth of approximately 20 to 30 feet. If the property is now left idle at this stage, then in coming rainy season the excavated area is likely to be filled with water, which may cause severe damage not only to the property in question but also to the adjoining properties. Therefore submitted that if development work is carried out that would not cause any harm or injury to the plaintiff and defendants No.14 to 17; rather, they would be benefit by receiving their respective shares in the event the suit is decreed in respect of the appeal schedule property.
62. This Court finds force in the submission and therefore is of the opinion that upon admitted fact that the property has been excavated to a depth of 20 to 30 feet and if the property is kept idle at this stage, then during rainy season, rainwater accumulation may damage the property and may affect the surrounding buildings.
- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR Therefore, halting the development activities by granting an injunction is not necessary. Therefore, in order to protect the interests of the plaintiff and defendants No.14 to 17, respondents No.2, 6 and 10 shall reserve the shares of plaintiff and defendants No.14 to 17, subject to the result of the suit and they shall not alienate reserved portions until disposal of the suit. This arrangement will protect the interests of the plaintiff and defendants No.14 to 17.
63. The decisions relied on by the counsels for the respondents are considered and the principles of law laid down therein are considered in the present case while considering the appeal.
64. Considering all these materials as discussed above and submissions made by the learned Senior Counsels, by making an observation that whatever development to be taken on the property would be subject to result of the suit and also all the co-sharers in the
- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR family would get their shares in the event the suit is decreed. Therefore, there is no reason to grant an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct and justified in not granting an order of temporary injunction. In the result the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
65. Accordingly, I answer point No.(i) in the 'affirmative' and point Nos.(ii) to (v) in the 'negative'.
66. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
a) I.A.No.2/2025 is allowed. The impleading applicant is permitted to come on record as respondent No.27 in the appeal.
b) The appeal is dismissed.
c) The order passed on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in O.S.No.3248/2012 dated 07.12.2024, on the file of IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is confirmed.
- 58 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10392 MFA No. 676 of 2025 HC-KAR
d) Respondents No.2, 6 and 10 shall reserve shares of the plaintiff and defendants No.14 to 17 in a developed portion of the property in question till decision in the suit and this reservation shall be subject to the result in the suit.
e) No order as to cost.
Whatever the observations made above are only for the purpose of considering the application of temporary injunction and shall not be considered as discussions and merits involved in the case; hence the Trial Court is directed to consider the suit in accordance with law after receiving the evidence from both the sides independently without being influenced by any of the observations made above as expeditious as possible.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP para Nos.1 to 27 and 36 to end SRA para Nos.28 to 35 CT: AN