Petitioner-defendant challenged interim injunction orders restraining him from alienating suit property purchased via sale deed from family members. Court held plaintiff no.2 failed to make out a prima facie case since her father and mother had conveyed their rights; writ petition allowed, injunction applications set aside and dismissed.
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 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.8939 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
RESIDING AT ITGALPURA VILLAGE HESARAGHATTA HOBLI YELAHANKA TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 064.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:22482 WP No. 8939 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 15 ARE RESIDING AT SURADENAPURA VILLAGE HESARAGHATTA HOBLI YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU-560 010.
…RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI B.V. BADRINATH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 (ABSENT); SRI B.K. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.16 (V/C) NOTICE TO R.1 & R.3 TO R.15 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 20.04.2023.]
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER,
DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER, TO QUASH THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 07.12.2022 PASSED IN M.A.NO.74/2022, BY THE COURT OF 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER ANNEXURE-B DATED 12.10.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.1984/2022 BY THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, AT BANGALORE, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
All the respondents belong to the family of one late Doddasubbaiah. The suit schedule property belongs to the family of Doddasubbaiah. Respondent nos.3 to 15 have executed a sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner herein. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even respondent no.16 has subsequently executed a deed of confirmation transferring all her rights in the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner. However, respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:22482 WP No. 8939 of 2023
nos.1 and 2 filed O.S.No.1984/2022 with the following
prayers:
"WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass Judgment and Decree against the Defendants:
i) For partition and separate possession of 1st Plaintiff 1/7th share as well as plaintiff No.2 got 1/4 share (out of share of defendant No.11 1/7th share) are entitled share over the suit schedule property and direct the Defendants to effect partition in respect of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and put the Plaintiff in possession of the same.
ii) Declare that, the registered sale deed dated 20.04.2022 vide document No.YAN-1-00777-202223 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar Yelahanka, Bengaluru executed by defendant No.1 to 14 in favour of defendant No.15 is not binding on the plaintiffs.
iii) Grant permanent injunction restraining the Defendants or their agents, legal representatives, power of attorney holders, family members or anybody acting on their behalf from alienating or in any way encumbering the schedule property in favour of anybody else, in any manner;
v) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, including costs of this suit, in the interest of justice and equity."
NC: 2024:KHC:22482 WP No. 8939 of 2023
"That for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit, the Applicant/Plaintiff most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an ad-interim order of temporary injunction, restraining the Defendant No.15 or his agents, workers, henchmen, supports, power of attorney or anybody acting on his behalf, from alienating the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit, in the interest of justice and equity.
In view of the urgency in the above matter the plaintiffs are under take to comply the order under order 39 rule 3 of CPC if the Hon'ble Court granted interim order."
the petitioner herein from alienating or otherwise creating third party rights over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed M.A.No.74/2022 and the Appellate Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed the order passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
accepting a valuable sale consideration. It is noticed from the pleadings that respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2 is the daughter of respondent nos.13 and 14 herein and they have also executed sale deed/confirmation deed in favour of the petitioner herein conveying all their rights in the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration. Admittedly, respondent no.13 is the son of late Doddasubbaiah and respondent no.14 is his wife and respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2 is their daughter. Thus, respondent no.2 will get a right on the suit schedule property only through respondent no.13 and respondent no.13 has executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein as Class I heir of late Doddasubbaiah and as also a Kartha of his own family consisting of his wife (respondent no.14) and his daughter (respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2). Under the circumstances, it cannot be held that respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2 has made out a prima facie case for grant of an interim order restraining the petitioner herein/defendant no.15 from alienating the suit schedule property.
NC: 2024:KHC:22482 WP No. 8939 of 2023
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
hkh.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court and appellate court erred in granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Mohan Kumar M.
Smt. Sharadamma
Smt. Shilpa R.
Sri Nagaraju
Smt. Jayalakshmi
Sri Srinivas
M.I.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
