In a partition suit, the defendants appealed against an interim injunction restraining alienation of suit schedule properties. The High Court held that whether properties are joint family or self-acquired must await full trial, and the properties should be preserved; it declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal.
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 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5013 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADVOCATE)
NC: 2024:KHC:40189 MFA No. 5013 of 2024
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.44/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., NELAMANGALA, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.1 in O.S. No.44/2024 dated 18.06.2024 by the I Addl. Senior civil Judge
and JMFC at Nelamangala, the defendants are before this Court.
joint family income and to purchase suit item Nos.7 and 8 in the name of defendant No.2 and at this stage without holding the trial, the Trial Court cannot arrive at conclusion that whether the properties in dispute are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants or self acquired property of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the Trial Court come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has prima facie case in his favour. Further, it is observed that the revenue records of suit item Nos.1 to 6 is standing in the name of defendant No.1 whereas revenue records of suit item Nos.7 and 8 is standing in the name of defendant No.2 and the suit item No.9 is a katha property which is standing in the name of defendant No.1 and as discussed in point No.1, it is clear that at this stage the Trial Court cannot arrive at conclusion that whether properties in dispute are joint family properties are self acquired property and to find out the same, trial has to be completed. Till then subject matter of dispute should be kept intact and in the case on hand already gift deed is executed in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 and other properties are also alienated. Then, it will be difficult for the plaintiff to claim his share. Hence, the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and
accordingly, the Trial Court had granted injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property.
NC: 2024:KHC:40189 MFA No. 5013 of 2024
According to the defendants, item Nos.3, 5, 6 and 9 are the joint family properties and the remaining are the self acquired properties of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The Trial Court had rightly given a finding that whether it is a self acquired property or the joint family property that cannot be decided by the Trial Court at the threshold and it has to be after a full fledged trial. Till such time, the suit schedule properties have to be preserved and the Trial Court, considering all these facts had passed a reasonable order and this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
BN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
1 issue framed by the court
Did the trial court correctly grant an interim injunction restraining alienation of suit properties pending trial in a partition suit?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Siddagangamma
Smt. Hemavathi B.
Sri. Ramesh B.
Vishwanath B.
Sri. Bettaswamy Gowda
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
