Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shanthamma vs Smt. Jayamma on 22 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27546
MFA No. 205 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 205 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2. SRI. KENCHAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKONAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
3. SRI. HANUMAIAH
S/O LATE KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
4. SRI. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
Digitally signed
by ANJALI M 5. SRI. MANJUNATHA
Location: High
Court of S/O LATE KENCHAPPA
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
6. SRI. NAGARAJU. K
S/O LATE KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.194, KUMBALAGODU
GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
KENGERI HOBLI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27546
MFA No. 205 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 074
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. JAYAMMA
D/O LATE KARIYAPPA
W/O SHIVANNA K.N
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2 . SMT. KENCHAMMA
D/O LATE KARIYAPPA
W/O PUTTARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT MUKKO`DALU VILLAGE
THATTAGUPPE POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 082
3 . SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE KARIYAPPA
W/O VENKATESHA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
4 . SRI. K. HANUMAIAH
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
5 . SRI K. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1, 3 TO 5 ARE
RESIDING AT KULLEGOWDANAPALYA VILLAGE
KUMBALAGODU GOLLAHALLI POST
KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 074
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:27546
MFA No. 205 of 2025
HC-KAR
6 . SMT. MANGAMMA
W/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
7 . SMT. AKKAYYAMMA
W/O LATE KARI KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7 ARE
RESIDING AT KUMBALAGODU
GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 074
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1
IN O.S.NO.1122/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER
XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:27546
MFA No. 205 of 2025
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is instituted under
Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
(for short, "CPC"), challenging the legality and correctness
of the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned First
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru, in O.S.No.1122/2024. By the said order, the
learned trial Court has allowed I.A.No.1 filed by the
plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 of CPC, thereby restraining the
appellants/defendants from alienating or creating any
encumbrance upon the suit schedule property pending
disposal of the suit. Now the present appellants aggrieved
by this Interlocutory order have approached this Court
contending that impugned order is erroneous, arbitrary,
and unsustainable in law.
2. The respondents herein, as plaintiffs before the
trial Court, had instituted this suit seeking relief of
NC: 2025:KHC:27546
HC-KAR
declaration that, they are the absolute and lawful owners
of the suit schedule property. They further sought a
consequential relief of permanent injunction against the
appellants. The foundation of their claim was based upon
the grant, said to have been made by the Competent
Authority in favour of their father, by name Kariyappa, in
the year 1963. According to the plaintiffs, the property
continued to stand in their father's name in the revenue
records, and upon his demise, they succeeded to the
property as his natural legal heirs. They alleged that, the
appellants, who are legal representatives of Kariyappa's
brothers, had unlawfully and fraudulently created certain
Release Deeds and got their names mutated in the
revenue records, despite having no legal or equitable claim
over the said property.
3. The appellants in opposition to the interim
application, submitted that, the property in question had
been the subject matter of a family partition, which
culminated in a registered Partition Deed dated
NC: 2025:KHC:27546
HC-KAR
12.01.2012. They asserted that, this Partition Deed had
been acted upon by all the branches of the family,
including the respondents, and that each branch had taken
possession of their respective share without any demur.
4. It was submitted that, the plaintiffs were not
only aware of the partition but had accepted its terms and
remained silent for a substantial period of time. The
appellants contended that, the suit was thus not only
barred by limitation, but also defective for non-joinder of
necessary parties, and the interim relief was liable to be
rejected on these fundamental grounds. In support of
their claim, they produced the registered Partition Deed,
Mutation Records and certain Sale Deeds to demonstrate
that, the property had already been dealt with and was not
in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs.
5. Upon consideration of the material placed
before it, the learned trial Court was of the view that,
plaintiffs had established a prima facie case entitling them
to interim protection. The learned trial Court noted the
NC: 2025:KHC:27546
HC-KAR
existence of the original grant made in the year 1963 in
favour of Kariyappa, and the corresponding revenue entry
reflecting the same. It is observed that, plaintiffs had
raised serious and rival issues considering the validity and
clarity of the partition and Release Deeds relied upon by
the defendants. The Court concluded that, the balance of
convenience tilts with the plaintiffs, who would otherwise
suffer irreparable loss and hardship, if the defendants were
permitted to alienate or encumber the property during the
pendency of the suit.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants
contended that, the trial Court erred in ignoring vital
documents such as the registered Partition Deed and
Mutation entries, which clearly demonstrate that, the
plaintiffs had lost their exclusive claim over the suit
property. It was argued that, the plaintiffs had acquiesced
to the partition arrangements and had taken benefit of the
same, and that their subsequent challenge to the validity
NC: 2025:KHC:27546
HC-KAR
of the document was a dishonest and belated attempt to
unsettle the settled matters.
7. The appellants further argued that, the trial
Court failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiffs had
approached the Court after an inordinate delay without
offering any explanation, and had suppressed material
facts to mislead the Court. According to them, the trial
Court should have declined to grant any equitable relief at
the interim stage.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents reiterated that, the plaintiffs were the lawful
successors of the original grantee Kariyappa and that the
appellants/defendants had no independent right or title to
the property. It was asserted that, the alleged partition
was fraudulent, unilateral and not binding on the plaintiffs,
who were neither signatories nor consenting parties to the
same, as all the plaintiffs attained majority in the year
2012. It was further argued that, allowing the defendants
to transact with the property during the pendency of the
NC: 2025:KHC:27546
HC-KAR
suit would irreversibly affect the plaintiff's rights and
would likely to give rise to unnecessary multiplicative
litigation. The learned counsel emphasized that, the
plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case that
warranted protection of the status quo until final
adjudication.
9. This court, having examined the contentions of
both sides and upon a detailed appraisal of the impugned
order, is of the considered opinion that, the learned trial
Court has exercised its discretion judicially, reasonably,
and in consonance with the well-settled legal principles
applicable to interlocutory matters. The trial Court has not
ventured into questions that require a full-fledged trial, but
has merely examined whether the plaintiffs have a
plausible and arguable case on merits. The order is a
reflection of a careful balancing of a competitive activity,
and this Court sees no error or impropriety in the manner
in which the discretion has been exercised.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27546
HC-KAR
10. It is well recognized that, the grant of a
temporary injunction is not meant to determine the rights
of the parties finally, but only to ensure that, the subject
matter of the suit is preserved until the Court can
adjudicate the issues comprehensively. When the plaintiffs
established that, there is a genuine dispute over title and
ownership, and that there exists a real threat of alienation
or encumbrance, which would render the final relief
illusory or negatory, Courts are justified in stepping into
maintain status quo. The trial Court's finding that,
irreparable harm would be caused to the plaintiffs, if
protection was not granted cannot be said to be perverse
or unreasonable.
11. The arguments of the appellants that Revenue
Records and Partition Deeds are confirmed binding rights
at the interlocutory stage is untenable. Entries in revenue
records are not conclusive proof of title, and the legality or
otherwise of the Partition Deed - particularly when its very
validity is under challenge - cannot be summarily assumed
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27546
HC-KAR
in favour of one party to the exclusion of the other. The
question of whether the plaintiffs have accepted the
partition and thereby waived their right is a disputed fact.
That must be established through evidence at trial and not
presumed at the stage of interim orders.
12. Furthermore, this Court is of the view that,
permitting any alienation or transaction concerning the
suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit
would lead to unnecessary complexities and may frustrate
the very purpose of the litigation. It would inevitably lead
to the involvement of the third parties, introduction of new
claims, and dilution of judicial resources. To prevent such
eventualities, and to preserve the integrity of the judicial
process, the maintenance of the status quo is not only
justified but necessary.
13. In this backdrop, the trial Court's conclusion
that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case, that
the balance of convenience lies in their favour and that
they would suffer irreparable loss in the absence of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27546
HC-KAR
protection is well founded. This Court finds no reason to
interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial
Court, which is neither capricious nor arbitrary. The
appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.
14. Resultantly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal stands
dismissed.
(ii) The order dated 16.12.2024 passed by
the I Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in
O.S.No.1122/2024, allowing I.A.No.I is
hereby confirmed.
(iii) The trial Court is requested to proceed
with the suit and dispose of the same
expeditiously with all its promptitude, in
accordance with law.
(iv) No orders as to cost.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
