Appeal by plaintiff in a partition suit against rejection of his temporary injunction application restraining alienation of suit properties. The High Court held the trial Court's discretionary order was reasoned and possible, noted plaintiff's delay and acquiescence disentitled him to injunction, and dismissed the appeal at admission stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2478 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI SRINIVASA V., S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A NO 1, CAUVERY EXTENSION, VARTHUR VILLAGE, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 087.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI G. NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
R/O THIMMANDANAHALLI VILLAGE, MUTHUSANDRA POST, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
8(e) REVATHI, D/O LATE S. MANGALAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A NO.344, OPP. TO SREE BALAMURUGAN TEMPLE, KAROMATION ROAD, BANGARPETE 563114. 9. S.R. MANJULA, D/O N.S.P. RAJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.5/2, 8TH CROSS, CHIKKABAIAH ROAD, OPP. TO MARY FLAVOR APARTMENT, NAGAWARAPALYA, C.V. RAMAN NAGARA POST, BENGALURU - 560 093. 14. SMT. P. AMARAVATHI, W/O N. GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.78, 5TH CROSS, RAJANNA COLONY, NAGAVARA PALYA, C V RAMAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 093. 15. SRI M. RAMESH KUMAR, S/O S MUTHIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, 11TH CROSS, VISHWESHWARAIAH STREET, NEAR K R PURAM, RAILWAY STATION, A.NARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 016.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.4956/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-26, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:24725 MFA No. 2478 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Challenging order dated 11.01.2024 passed by X Addl.
City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-26), Bengaluru, in O.S.no.4956/2021 on I.A.no.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (' CPC ' for short), this appeal is filed.
submitted, appeal was by plaintiff in suit filed for partition, separate possession and declaration. In said suit, plaintiff had filed I.A.no.1 for order of temporary injunction restraining defendants no.1 to 11 from alienating suit schedule properties, during pendency of suit. It was submitted, under impugned order, trial Court rejected said application on wholly untenable grounds.
NC: 2024:KHC:24725 MFA No. 2478 of 2024
Prabavathi. It was submitted, plaintiff was son of defendant no.1, while defendant no.2 was wife and defendants no.3 to 7 were brothers and sisters.
documents produced by him and without considering legitimate share of plaintiff.
order.
is:
“Whether order of trial Court is untenable or perverse and calls for interference?”
NC: 2024:KHC:24725 MFA No. 2478 of 2024
of limitation for filing suit for partition, but while considering application for temporary injunction, conduct of parties would be one of important factors.
Bottling Company Limited v. Coca Cola Company Limited , reported in AIR 1995 SC 2372 , lack of bonafide conduct and earnest on part of plaintiff would disentitle him from discretionary relief. In view of above, point for consideration is answered in negative.
Consequently, appeal is dismissed at admission stage
without need for issuing notice to respondents.
Sd/JUDGE
GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial Court's rejection of the temporary injunction application in a partition suit was untenable or perverse and called for interference?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd. Mehtab Ibrahim Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim KhanRelied on¶10
2013 (9) SCC 221 · Who else cites this
Gujarat Bottling Company Limited v. Coca Cola Company LimitedApplied¶13
AIR 1995 SC 2372 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Srinivasa V.
Sri Venkatappa
Smt. Ramakka
Smt. Bhagyamma
Sri Venkataswamy
Smt. Nirmala
Ravi V Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
