Karnataka High Court
Sri Vali Kotrappa vs Late Kalavathi Arali on 4 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349
MFA No. 103208 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103208 OF 2025 (CPC-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VALI KOTRAPPA S/O LATE
GURUPADAPPA, AGE: 77 YEARS,
R/AT: 104, 15TH WARD, NEAR PETE
BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE, SANAPURA,
KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSAPETE TALUK,
DIST: BALLARY- 583132.
2. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA
D/O LATE VALI KOTRAMMA,
& LATE BASAVANAPPA MUNDWADA,
W/O SRI. VALI KOTRAPPA, AGE: MAJOR,
R/AT: 104, 15TH WARD, NEAR PETE
BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE, SANAPURA,
KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSAPETE TALUK,
DIST: BALLARY- 583132.
3. SRI. VALI GURU S/O VALI KOTRAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, R/AT: 104, 15TH WARD,
NEAR PETE BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE,
SANAPURA, KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSAPETE TALUK,
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
DIST: BALLARY- 583132.
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
B SHELAR
Date:
2025.09.11
12:11:30 +0530 4. SMT. LALITHAMMA VALI W/O LATE VALI
ADIVESHAPPA, AGE: 68 YEARS,
R/AT: 10, 15TH WARD, SALAGUDI STREET,
KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSAPETE TALUK,
DIST: BALLARY-583132.
5. SMT. VALI SRIDEVI W/O LATE VALI
RAJASHEKHAR, AGE: 64 YEARS,
R/AT: 10TH, 15TH WARD, NEAR KALGUDIN
ONI, MUDDAPURA, KAMPLI HOBLI,
HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARY DISTRICT- 583132.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349
MFA No. 103208 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. SMT. AISHWARYA D/O LATE
VALI RAJASHEKHAR, AGE: MAJOR,
R/AT: 10TH, 15TH WARD, NEAR KALGUDIN
ONI, MUDDAPURA, KAMPLI HOBLI,
TQ HOSAPETE, DIST. BALLARY - 583 132.
7. SRI. AMRUTH S/O LATE VALI RAJASHEKHAR,
AGE: MAJOR, R/AT: 10TH, 15TH WARD,
NEAR KALGUDIN ONI, MUDDAPURA,
KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSAPETE TALUK,
BALLARY DISTRICT- 583 132.
8. SMT. VALI SHARADA W/O LATE VALI VIDYADHAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, R/AT: 104, 15TH WARD,
NEAR PETE BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE, SANAPURA,
KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSPAPETE TALUK,
DIST: BELLARY- 583 132.
9. SRI. VALI KARTHIK S/O LATE VALI VIDYADHAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, R/AT: 104, 15TH WARD,
NEAR PETE BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE,
SANAPURA, KAMPLI HOBLI,
HOSPAPETE TALUK, DIST: BELLARY- 583 132.
10. SRI. VALI SRIKANTH S/O LATE VALI VIDYADHAR,
AGE: 28 YEARS, R/AT: 104, 15TH WARD,
NEAR PETE BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE,
SANAPURA, KAMPLI HOBLI, HOSPAPETE TALUK,
DIST: BELLARY- 583 132.
11. SRI. PRAKASH S/O LATE VALI KOTRAMMA,
& LATE BASAVANNAPPA MUNDAWADA,
AGE: 68 YEARS, R/AT: MUNDWADA OIL MILLS,
HOVINAHADAGALI, HOVINAHADAGALI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGAR DIST: 583132.
12. SRI. UMESH S/O LATE VALI KOTRAMMA
& LATE BASAVANNAPPA MUNDAWADA,
AGE: 66 YEARS, R/AT: MUNDWADA OIL MILLS,
HOVINAHADAGALI, HOVINAHADAGALI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGAR DIST: 583132.
13. SRI. SHASIDHAR S/O LATE VALI KOTRAMMA,
& LATE BASAVANAPPA MUNDWADA,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349
MFA No. 103208 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGE: 62 YEARS, R/AT: BASAVANAPPA MUNDAWADA
SWAN MILLS, HOVINAHADAGALI,
HOVIANAHADAGALI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT: 583132.
14. SRI. SATISH S/O LATE VALI KOTRAMMA
& LATE BASAVANAPPA MUNDAWADA,
AGE: 60 YEARS, R/AT: M.B. KIRANI STORES
HOVINAHADAGALI, HOVINAHADAGALI TALUK
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583132.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A. VEERANNA, ADV)
AND:
LATE KALAVATHI ARALI
SINCE DECEASED REP BY HER LRS
1. SRI SANNA GUNDAPPA S/O LATE VEERANNA
ARALI AND LATE KALAVATHI ARALI
AGE. 55 YEARS, WARD NO. 13, GADDER ONI,
KARATAGI, GANGAVATHI TALUK
KOPPAL DIST -583229.
2. SMT. NANDA.A D/O LATE VEERANNA ARALI &
LATE KALAVATHI ARALI, AGE: 55 YEARS,
WARD NO. 13, GADDER ONI, KARATAGI,
GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DIST -583229.
3. SMT. SUDHA HADAGALI D/O LATE VEERANNA
ARALI & LATE KALAVATHI ARALI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, NO.30, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
1ST A-CROSS, BYRAVESHWARA NAGAR,
SHANTHI DHAMA SCHOOL ROAD,
SUNKADAKATTE, VISHWANEEDAM,
BENGALURU-560091.
4. SMT. MANGALA H.M S/O LATE VEERANNA
ARALI & LATE KALAVATHI ARALI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, NO.210, 31ST WARD,
1ST CROSS, NEHARU COLONY,
13 GADDER ONI, KARATAGI, KOPPAL.
5. SRI. SHARANABASAVA ARALI
S/O LATE VEERANNA ARALI &
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349
MFA No. 103208 of 2025
HC-KAR
LATE KALAVATHI ARALI, AGE: 51 YEARS
WARD NO.13, AGADDER ONI, KARATAGI
TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583229.
6. SRI. VIDYANANDA ARALI
S/O LATE VEERANNA ARALI & LATE
KALAVATHI ARALI, AGE: 41 YEARS,
R/AT: 301, 4TH FLOOR, SAI APARTMENT,
BEHIND NAMMURU THINDI HOTEL,
NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 R/W ORDER 104 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF O.S.NO.147/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HOSAPETE, AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME, SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 DATED 14.03.2025 IN O.S.NO.147/2023
ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, HOSAPETE AND CONSEQUENTLY TO REJECT THE SAME.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
This appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the
order on I.A.No.2 dated 14.03.2025 passed in
O.S.No.147/2023 by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Hospete.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349
HC-KAR
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal
are as follows:
The respondents filed a suit for partition and separate
possession. In the said suit, respondents filed an application
in I.A.No.2 seeking an order of temporary injunction under
order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C,
restraining the appellants herein from alienating or
encumbrance over the suit schedule properties to the third
party till the disposal of the pending suit. In respect of the
application, the respondents filed a sworn affidavit stating
that they have filed a suit for partition and separate
possession and the appellants are trying to alienate the suit
schedule properties depriving the legitimate shares of the
respondents. The said application was opposed by the
appellants and prayed to reject the application in I.A.No.2.
3. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel
for the parties, allowed the application in I.A.No.2 vide
order dated 14.03.2025. Hence, this appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349
HC-KAR
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
there was a prior partition between Vali Kotrapa and Vali
Adiveshappa, Vali Rajashekhar and Vali Vidyadhar in
respect of the joint family properties in 1989 and the same
was acted upon. Hence, he submits that the suit filed by
the respondents itself is not maintainable. He submits that
the parties are residing in and are in possession of their
respective shares. Therefore, the Trial Court committed an
error in allowing I.A. No.2. Hence, prays to allow the
appeal.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for appellants.
7. There is no dispute that the respondents have
filed a suit for partition and separate possession, contending
that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint
family properties of the appellants and the respondents.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349
HC-KAR
The appellants have taken a specific contention that there
was a prior partition between the family members. Hence,
the suit filed by the respondents is not maintainable.
Insofar as the prior partition effected between the family
members is concerned, the matter requires a full fledged
trial. The respondents have filed the suit for partition and
separate possession and have made allegation against the
appellants that they are making attempts to alienate the
suit schedule properties depriving the legitimate shares of
the respondents.
8. It is the case of the respondents that the suit
schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family
properties of the respondents and the appellants; they are
the members of a Hindu Undivided Family; no partition is
effected between them; the appellants are trying to alienate
the schedule properties.
9. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the
appellants have no intention to alienate the suit schedule
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11349
HC-KAR
properties. If the appellants have no intention to alienate
the suit schedule properties, it was not necessary for the
appellants to file this appeal.
10. In view of the statement made by the learned
counsel for the appellants that the appellants are not
alienating the suit schedule properties, nothing survives for
consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
NAA
CT: BSB
