Dismissed¶77

Smt. Yashoda Sanil Vishwanath v. Sri. Prashanth Kumar a v

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2025MFA/3715/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: temporary injunction; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; Section 94(c) CPC; Section 151 CPC; Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC appeal; MFA (CPC); partition and declaration suit; settlement deed null and void; ancestral and joint family properties; restraint on alienation and creation of charge; refusal to modify injunction to permit business-expansion loan; Item No.21 Schedule 'A'; 55 employees factory; interim stay dated 24.07.2025; loan sub judice; expedite trial; Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM Udupi; O.S.No.13/2024; appeal dismissed; injunction confirmed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the temporary injunction order dated 18.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.II in O.S.No.13/2024 was confirmed and no order as to costs was made. ¶77

Smt. Yashoda Sanil Vishwanath Vs Sri. Prashanth Kumar a v — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the temporary injunction order dated 18.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.II in O.S.No.13/2024 was confirmed and no order as to costs was made.

¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellants/defendants demonstrate that the plaintiffs have not made out prima facie case so as to grant an order of temporary injunction. +3 more

¶54

Court's answer

The plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of the order of temporary injunction.

¶77

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiffs have made out balance of convenience for grant of the order of temporary injunction.

¶77

Key takeaways

If an order of temporary injunction is not granted, the plaintiffs would suffer loss and injury.ratio¶77
The impugned order passed by the trial Court is legal and not perverse; no interference or modification of it is called for, the injunction being confined to restraining alienation/creation of charge without disturbing the defendants' business or loans already raised.ratio¶76
The appeal is dismissed and the trial Court's order dated 18.02.2025 granting temporary injunction is confirmed, with no order as to costs.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), single judge (Hanchate Sanjeevkumar), 09.12.2025: MFA No. 3715 of 2025 (CPC) filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 against the order dated 18.02.2025 of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Udupi allowing the plaintiffs' I.A.No.II (Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Sections 94(c) and 151 CPC) for temporary injunction in O.S.No.13/2024, a suit for declaration that a settlement deed is null and void and for partition claiming 3/5th share in ancestral/joint family suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. Appeal dismissed; trial Court's order confirmed. Held: plaintiffs made out prima facie case and balance of convenience, and would suffer loss and injury if injunction were not granted; the injunction merely restrains creation of charge/alienation without hindering the defendants' factory business or loans already raised; no reason was shown why a future loan needed to be raised only on Item No.21 of Schedule 'A'. The Court's interim order of 24.07.2025 had permitted raising a loan on Item No.21 subject to the outcome of the suit; that loan is sub judice and will not affect the plaintiffs' rights. Trial Court directed to expedite the trial; no order as to costs.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:52003 MFA No. 3715 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3715 OF 2025 (CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. YASHODA SANIL VISHWANATH, W/O LATE VISHWANATH A. SANIL AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶11

SMT.K.PRAMILA SANIL W/O SRI BHARATH M.KOTIAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 ARE BOTH R/AT H.NO.8-253, DODDAMANE, SRI VISWHA GAJANANA THONSE WEST, PO KEMMANNU UDUPI TALUK

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR A V S/O LATE A.VISHWANATH SANIL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶17

SRI. PRATHAP V. SANIL S/O LATE A. VISHWANATH SANIL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶18

RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE BOTH R/AT NO.6(NEW NO.76), 1^ST MAIN ROAD, NEAR LALBHAG ROAD, SUDHAMANAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE 560 027

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52003 MFA No. 3715 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT. PRATHIMA.R W/O RAMESH BABU.G D/O LATE A.VISHWANATH SANIL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.321, APOORVA MEADOWS, AGRAHARA BADAVANE, KOGILU, YELAHANKA BENGALURU – 560 0064

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN G, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶24

THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.18.02.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 2 IN O.S.NO.13/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, UDUPI, ALLOW ING THE IA NO.2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.94(c) AND 151 OF CPC, 1908.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

The appeal is filed by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 questioning the order dated 18.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.II in O.S.No.13/2024 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Udupi, D.K., thereby, the application filed by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction is allowed.

¶29

The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and partition for claiming 3/5^th share in all the suit

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52003 MFA No. 3715 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

schedule properties by claiming that the schedule

¶33

properties are ancestral and joint family properties.

¶34

Upon the application filed by the plaintiffs, the trial Court has passed the following order:

¶35

“ ORDER

¶36

The I.A No. II filed by the plaintiffs U/o 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Sections 94(c) and 151 of CPC is hereby allowed.

¶37

In the result, the defendants No.1 and 2 or their men or anybody on their behalf are hereby restrained from creating charge/alienating the suit schedule 'A' and B' properties in any manner till disposal of the suit.

¶38

It is made clear that the temporary injunction order passed by this court today will not come in the way, if any loan obtained by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 either to improve or to invest the money before passing of this order.

¶39

It is also made clear that this order will not come in the way to run the business by the 2^nd defendant without creating charge or alienating the suit schedule properties.

¶40

Parties to bear their own cost of this application.”

¶41

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant

¶42

Nos.1 and 2 submitted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are

¶43

running a factory and there are about 55 employees are

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52003 MFA No. 3715 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

employed and for further expansion of business and its business activities, a loan will be needed by mortgaging Item No.21 of Schedule ‘A’ in the plaint property. Therefore, prays for modification of the impugned order insofar as allowing the defendants to raise loan by making utilization of the property at Item No.21 in schedule ‘A’ in the plaint property and let the order of temporary injunction be continued insofar as other properties are concerned. Hence, prays to allow/modify the impugned order.

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs

¶48

submitted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are intending to raise loan by making utilization of the property at Item No.21 is not for business or industrial expansion activities and if defendant Nos.1 and 2 are allowed to raise loan by making use of Item No.21 property and in future, if defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not repaid the loan, then it would lead to auction and in such an event, the plaintiffs would suffer injury and loss insofar as item No.21 property

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52003 MFA No. 3715 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

is concerned. Therefore, justified the impugned order and prays not to modify the impugned order as requested by the appellants/defendants.

¶52

Upon considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials produced at this stage, the points that arise for consideration are as under:

¶53

(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the

¶54

appellants/defendants demonstrate that the plaintiffs have not made out prima facie case so as to grant an order of temporary injunction?

¶55

(ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellants/defendants demonstrate that the plaintiffs have not made out balance of convenience so as to grant an order of temporary injunction?

¶56

(iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the defendants demonstrate that if an order of temporary

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52003 MFA No. 3715 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

injunction is not granted, then the plaintiffs will not suffer any loss or injury?

¶60

(iv) Whether the order passed by the trial Court granting an order of temporary injunction requires interference from this Court?

¶61

The suit is filed for partition and declaration to declare that the settlement deed is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and also for partition by claiming 3/5^th share in all the suit schedule properties. The relationship between the parties and nature of property involved in the suit are not in dispute.

¶62

The trial Court after considering the case held that if the defendants raise further loan amount and if they do not reimburse the amount, then that would be subject to risk of auctioning of property and in such an event, the plaintiffs will not be able to get their share insofar as item No.21 property is concerned.

¶63

For this, learned counsel for the

¶64

appellants/defendants submitted that the defendants have

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:52003 MFA No. 3715 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

mortgaged other properties for raising loan and the defendants are repaying the loan amount promptly, which shows that the defendants are in need of raising future loan for genuine purpose for expansion of business and industrial activities as more than 55 employees are employed.

¶68

This Court on 24.07.2025 has stayed the impugned order and at the same time permitted the defendants to raise loan on Item No.21 and other properties of the plaint schedule property, subject to the outcome of the suit. Upon considering the impugned order passed by the trial Court, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality. The only reason given by the defendants to raise loan in future by making utilization of Item No.21 property is that, this property is situated where the factory being run by the defendants is situated. But there is no reason assigned by the defendants as to why the defendants are interested to raise loan only by

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:52003 MFA No. 3715 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

making utilization of Item No.21 of plaint schedule property.

¶72

Therefore, upon considering the impugned order and the plaintiffs also having share in the plaint schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties, therefore, restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties is found to be correct. Further the trial Court by safeguarding the interest of the defendants has observed that the order of temporary injunction will not come in the way, if any loan was obtained by the defendants either to improve or to invest in factory before passing the order.

¶73

It is also made clear that this will not come in the way to run the business by the defendants without creating charge or alienating the suit properties. Therefore, on all these aspects, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is found to be legal and it is not perverse in nature. The impugned order is only for restraining the defendants from alienating without

¶74

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:52003 MFA No. 3715 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

disturbing to carry out business and also the order of temporary injunction will not come in the way of the loan already raised by the defendants for running activities of business industry. Therefore, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court.

¶77

Therefore, the trial Court is correct in observing that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience. If an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiffs would suffer loss and injury. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is justified. Hence, there is no need to make any interference or modification in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶78

By virtue of the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 by this Court permitting the defendants to raise loan by using Item No.21 property, the defendants have mortgaged Item No.21 of plaint schedule ‘A’ property and loan is sanctioned. If that be so, loan raised is subjudice of the suit proceedings and this loan will not

¶79

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:52003 MFA No. 3715 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

affect the rights of the plaintiffs. The trial Court shall expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible and for this, both the parties shall co-operate with the trial Court for

¶82

early disposal.

¶83

15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶84

ORDER

¶85

(i) The appeal is dismissed .

¶86

(ii) The impugned order dated 18.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.II in O.S.No.13/2024 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Udupi, D.K., is hereby confirmed.

¶87

(iii) No order as to costs.

¶88

SD/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶89

¶90

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Smt. Yashoda Sanil Vishwanath v. Sri. Prashanth Kumar a v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Yashoda Sanil Vishwanath v. Sri. Prashanth Kumar a v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bowring Institute Vs Bharath Poovaiah

Gowramma Vs Y K Rangegowda

Smt. Chandrakala Vs Vidya S

Sri M Muddanna Vs Dr. M Shashibhushan

Manjunath H S Vs R. Shankar Narayan

Smt Saraswathi Vs Sri Gowrish D B