Single judge High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order refusing a temporary injunction in a partition suit, holding the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case given the respondent's independent income.
The writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand closed.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:22226 WP No. 9218 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 9218 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C. SURESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY @ MUNI REDDY R/AT DOMMASANDRA ROAD, MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE & POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI VIA BOMMANSANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 099
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.K VASANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THE RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 ARE R/AT CHIKKANIKKUNDI BADAVANE, MUTHASANDRA ROAD, CHIKKANEKKUNDI, MUTHASANDRA POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, VARTHUR, BENGALURU-560 087.
NC: 2024:KHC:22226 WP No. 9218 of 2018
THE RESPONDENTS 7 TO 10 ARE R/AT MUTHNALLUR VILAGE & POST GOPASANDRA ROAD, SARJAPURA HOBLI, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN, DISTRICT-560 099.
THE RESPONDENTS 13 & 14 ARE R/O SOMANAHALLI ROAD, MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE & POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, ANEKAL TAUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 099.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RECORDS IN OS NO.114/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, AT ANEKAL AND IN MA NO.5022/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL AND HEAR THE PARTIES AND; QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 8.11.2017 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN OS NO.114/2013 BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT ANEKAL VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.2.2018 IN MA NO.5022/2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.114/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal, which is confirmed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in M.A.No.5022/2017 dated 01.02.2018, the present writ petition is filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/10th share in 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F' and 'G' schedule properties and also for consequential relief to declare that the registered gift settlement deed dated 19.11.2012 executed by defendant No.8 in favour of defendant No.9 is not binding on the plaintiff and
also another registered sale deed dated 25.08.2011 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.17 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
the joint family properties, except item No.1 of 'B' schedule properties, defendant No.8 has purchased item Nos.2 to 9 of 'B'
to 'G' schedule properties. Now, it is his case that certain documents were executed by defendant No.8 and to declare that the same were not binding on him. It is the apprehension of the plaintiff that the encumbrance may be created in respect of other suit schedule properties. As such, he has sought temporary injunction.
purchased the properties mentioned in schedule 'C' to 'G'. Defendant No.8 has produced the sale deed under which the properties have purchased and all the sale deed stands in the name of defendant No.8 alone. Further, the Court has observed that no income is deriving from item No.1 of B schedule properties. The burden of proving that defendant No.8 invested joint family funds to purchase the remaining items of B schedule properties except item No.1 and 'C' to 'G' is on the plaintiff. Unless the plaintiff discharges his burden, it is not possible to say at this juncture that all the properties are the joint family properties and if an order of injunction is granted, it takes way the right of defendant No.8 in enjoying the properties, which he has purchased in accordance with law. Further, the Court below felt that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case and accordingly, dismissed I.A.No.3 and the same is confirmed by the Appellate Court in M.A.No.5022/2017 dated 01.02.2018.
submits that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the contention and the issues involved in the case. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit, if defendant
No.8 creates encumbrance on the properties and if he creates
third party rights, it would give rise to multiplicity of proceedings and this aspect was not appreciated by the Courts below. It is submitted that whether the said properties are joint family properties or it is self-acquired properties of defendant No.8 can only be decided during the course of trial, but not at this stage. He submits that the Trial Court has gone beyond the scope and dismissed the application. The Appellate Court also, without appreciating the contention, confirmed the order of the Trial Court and it is submitted that unless injunction is granted it would cause lots of prejudice to the plaintiff.
schedule properties are ancestral properties and item Nos.2 to 9 of 'B' schedule properties to 'G' properties are standing the name of defendant No.8. But according to the plaintiff, they are purchased from the income derived from the plaint 'A' and item No.1 of 'B' of the schedule properties. When the application for injunction is filed by the plaintiff/petitioner, the burden lies on him to prove that there is a prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour. When the plaint 'A' schedule properties are lands which are small extent and item No.1 of 'B' schedule properties is house property, no income could be derived from item No.1 of 'B' schedule properties. Further, compare to other properties, plaint 'A' and item No.1 of 'B' of the schedule properties are very smaller extent of the properties. On the face of it, the Court has felt that apart from just making a peculiar stand, the plaintiff, by adducing some more evidence or by placing some more material on record, has to establish that the properties are ancestral properties. The other defendants have supported the case of defendant No.8. If all the schedule properties are held to be ancestral properties, all the other defendants would also have a share in the properties. The Court had considered financial capacity of defendant No.8 and the fact that he is an
NC: 2024:KHC:22226 WP No. 9218 of 2018
income tax assessee and he is also earning an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- per month. Considering all these facts, the Court felt that there is no prima facie case. In the considered opinion of this Court, both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the facts and law and refused to grant injunction to the plaintiff. This Court finds no reason to inference with the impugned order.
9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .
All pending IA’s if any shall stand closed.
VM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition to quash the trial court's order refusing to grant a temporary injunction in a partition suit.
Whether the plaintiff discharged the burden of proving a prima facie case for a temporary injunction regarding ancestral properties converted into self-acquired properties.
Whether the impugned orders below were erroneous in light of the defendants' financial capacity and lack of joint family fund contribution.
C. Suresh Reddy
Jayamma
C. Prakash Reddy
P. Prema
Sunanda
S. Bruntha
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
