[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj vs Bassanna And Ors on 22 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:477
MFA No. 202524 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202524 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O LATE DIDDEPPA,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC:DISTRICT JUDGE,
PERMANENT R/O. ATNUR VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRWAR, DIST. RAICHUR.
NOW WORKING AS
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG,
DIST. GADAG-582 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SRI BASSANNA S/O LATE DIDDEPPA,
AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ATNUR VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRWAR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 129.
2. SMT. HANUMANTAMMA W/O LATE RACHANNA,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. ATNUR VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRWAR, DIST.RAICHUR,
ALSO AT C/O NAGAREDDY, TEACHER,
DONDAMBLI MALLAYYA DODDI,
POST BEDARA GANEKAL,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:477
MFA No. 202524 of 2024
HC-KAR
TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 129.
3. SRI RAJASHEKHAR S/O LATE VIRUPANNA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ATNUR VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRWAR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 129.
4. SRI BASAVANTKUMAR S/O LATE VIRUPANNA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ATNUR VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRWAR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 129.
5. SRI SANNA VIRUPANNA S/O LATE DIDDEPPA,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ATNUR VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRWAR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 129.
6. SRI PARAPPA S/O LATE DIDDEPPA,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ATNUR VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRWAR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 129.
7. SRI A. EARANNA S/O BASSANNA,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: DISTRICT JUDGE,
62ND ADDL. CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU,
DIST. BENGALURU-560 001.
8. SRI MALLIKARJUN S/O BASSANNA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O. ATNUR VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRWAR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 129.
9. SMT. AYYAMMA D/O RACHANNA,
W/O NAGAREDDY,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. DONDAMBLI,
MALLAYYA DODDI,
POST. BEDARGANEKAL,
TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 129.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:477
MFA No. 202524 of 2024
HC-KAR
10. SMT. PARVATAMMA W/O SANNA VIRUPANNA,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. ATNUR VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRWAR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 129.
11. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O PARAPPA,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. ATNUR VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRWAR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 129.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.G. YATNAL ,ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3, R4 AND R9;
SRI S.R. KADLOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8, R10 AND R11;
R1 AND R5 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (r) OF CPC,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 14.08.2024 PASSED ON I.A NO.I IN O.S.NO.27/2024
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
MANVI, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION I.E I.A NO.I
OF THE APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX
RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. AND TO PASS ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDERS.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 19.01.2026, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:477
MFA No. 202524 of 2024
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the
order dated 14.08.2024 in O.S.No.27/2024, on the file of
the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Manvi
(hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), dismissing
I.A.Nos.1 and 5 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the
Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC').
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties in the
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this
appeal are that, the plaintiff has filed suit in
O.S.No.27/2024, seeking relief of partition and separate
possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. The
plaintiff has filed I.A.Nos.1 and 5 under Order 39 Rules 1
and 2 of CPC, seeking the relief of temporary injunction,
restraining the defendants from alienating the suit
schedule properties. The said application was contested
NC: 2026:KHC-K:477
HC-KAR
by the defendants. The Trial Court after considering the
material on record, by its order dated 14.08.2024
dismissed the application and feeling aggrieved by the
same, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
4. Heard Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa, the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, Sri
P.G.Yatnal, the learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.2, 3, 4 and 9 and Sri S.R.Kadloor, the learned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 8, 10 and 11.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that, the suit is filed by the
plaintiff seeking the relief of partition and separate
possession and in the event, the defendants alienate the
suit schedule properties by creating third party rights, the
same would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff and
therefore, sought for interference of this Court. It is
further argued that, though the family settlement was
entered into between the family members as per oral
partition took place on 11.08.2003, however, the equitable
NC: 2026:KHC-K:477
HC-KAR
share was not allotted in favour of the plaintiff and that
apart, the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the RTC
extracts in respect of item No.4 of the suit schedule
properties. Therefore, sought for interference of this
Court.
6. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for
the respondents/defendants submitted that, as the plaintiff
himself has admitted about the oral partition said to have
been held on 11.08.2003 and therefore, as the division of
property has already been made pursuant to the same and
the same has been acted upon by the parties and as such,
the finding recorded by the Trial Court is just and proper,
which do not requires interference by this Court. It is also
contended by the learned counsels appearing for the
respondents/defendants that, as the admission has been
made by the plaintiff in the plaint itself as to the oral
partition held on 11.08.2003 and in that view of the
matter, the reasons assigned by the Trial Court is just and
proper, which do not call for interference in this appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:477
HC-KAR
7. Having taken note of the submission made by
the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute as
to the fact that, O.S.No.27/2024 is filed by the plaintiff,
seeking relief of partition and separate possession in
respect of the suit schedule properties. Though it is stated
at paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the plaint as to the oral
partition said to have been effected on 11.08.2003,
however, the said oral partition has not given effect to, as
the plaintiff is disputing allotment of share as per the oral
partition dated 11.08.2003. It is also forthcoming from
paragraph No.16 of the plaint as to the debts of the
members of the joint family. Taking into consideration the
factual aspects on record, as the plaintiff disputes the oral
partition dated 11.08.2003 in the alternative prayer made
in the plaint, I find force in the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, in the
event, the suit schedule properties are alienated by the
defendants and the same would cause irreparable loss to
the plaintiff.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:477
HC-KAR
8. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded
by the Trial Court at paragraph No.14 of the impugned
order that, the plaintiff has produced RTC extracts, Bank
account statement and sale deed dated 28.05.1980. In
the backdrop of these aspects, the observations made by
the Trial Court that the plaintiff has suppressed the
material facts, cannot be accepted. The plaintiff in
unequivocal terms has admits the oral partition dated
11.08.2003, however, no document has been produced by
either of the parties as to the oral partition dated
11.08.2003, which requires to be decided by the Trial
Court in full-fledged trial. In that view of the matter, the
suit requires detail consideration with regard to the
alienation of the suit properties between the plaintiff and
defendants, based on the oral and documentary evidence
that may be produced by the parties in trial and in order
to protect the interest of the plaintiff, the Trial Court ought
to have allowed I.A.Nos.1 and 5 filed under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction against
NC: 2026:KHC-K:477
HC-KAR
the defendants from alienating the suit schedule
properties, particularly, schedule 'C' and 'B' properties,
pending disposal of the suit.
9. It is also to be noted that, in the event, the suit
schedule properties, particularly, 'B' and 'C' schedule
properties are the subject matter in any registered
instrument if alienation is made by the defendants and
same would cause imbalance and hardship to the plaintiff.
Therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court dated
14.08.2024 requires to be interfered with in this appeal
taking into consideration the fact that the suit is one for
relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the
suit schedule properties.
10. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:477
HC-KAR
II. The order dated 14.08.2024 in
O.S.No.27/2024 on the file of the learned
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Manvi is hereby
set aside.
III. I.A.Nos.1 and 5 filed by the plaintiff under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, restraining
the defendants from alienating the 'B' and 'C'
schedule properties, is to be accepted.
Consequently, I.A.Nos.1 and 5 are allowed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SRT
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50
CT:PK
