Disposed¶69

Nagarathnamma v. Muninagappa

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2025MFA/4239/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, MFA No.4239/2025 (CPC), decided 04-07-2025, Ramachandra D. Huddar J. Temporary injunction in partition suit (O.S.No.1088/2024, Devanahalli): injunction refused against purchaser-defendant No.7 (Sale Deed 28.05.2001, pre-dating 20.12.2004 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cut-off); appeal disposed of; future alienations by defendant No.7 subject to doctrine of lis pendens; plaintiff's 1/3rd-share claim left to full-fledged trial; Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 r/w S.151 CPC; Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of without granting temporary injunction against respondent No.7; any alienation by respondent No.7 of the schedule property during pendency of the suit to be subject to the doctrine of lis pendens; all rights of the parties to the suit kept open. ¶69

Nagarathnamma Vs Muninagappa — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to temporary injunction restraining respondent No.7 from alienating Item No.1 of the suit schedule property till disposal of the partition suit, the Trial Court having rejected the application against respondent No.7. +1 more

¶47

Court's answer

In lieu of granting a temporary injunction against respondent No.7, the Court held that if respondent No.7 alienates the schedule property during pendency of the suit, such alienation will be subject to the doctrine of lis pendens.

¶68

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff's legitimate claim, founded on her reliance upon the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, is to be decided by the Trial Court in a full fledged trial.

¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA (CPC) under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1088/2024 (suit for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share; defendant Nos.1-6 ex-parte) challenging the order dated 05.06.2025 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, which partly allowed her IA No.2 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 r/w S.151 CPC) by granting temporary injunction against defendant Nos.1-6 but rejecting it against defendant No.7, purchaser of Item No.1 under registered Sale Deed dated 28.05.2001, an alienation prior to the 20.12.2004 period prescribed under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The High Court (Ramachandra D. Huddar, J.) disposed of the appeal: the plaintiff's claim based on the Hindu Succession Act is to be decided by the Trial Court in a full-fledged trial, and any alienation by defendant No.7 of the schedule property during pendency of the suit shall be subject to the doctrine of lis pendens; all rights of the parties kept open.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4239 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN:

¶7

NAGARATHNAMMA W/O VENKARAMAYYA H D/O MUNINAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT MALLUR VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 102

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. AMBAJI RAO NAJRE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MUNINAGAPPA S/O LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

LAKSHMAMMA W/O MUNINAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶14

RAVIKUMAR S/O MUNINAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶15

VINAY KUMAR S/O RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

VIKAS S/O RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶19

NARAYANASWAMY S/O MUNINAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶20

Y.M. RAMESH S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶21

ALL ARE R/AT YELIYUR VILLAGE AND POST CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. MARIAPPA M.S, ADVOCATE FOR R7; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.06.2025 NOTICE TO R1 TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.05.06.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.1088/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING IA NO.2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶26

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.7 at length.

¶33

This appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 05.06.2025 passed in O.S.No.1088/2024 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Devanahalli, wherein the interim application filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking an ad-interim order of temporary injunction by restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 6 or anybody claiming through them

¶34

from alienating or creating any third party interest in respect of suit schedule property, till the disposal of the suit.

¶35

It is the case of the plaintiff before the Trial

¶36

Court that, the suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the schedule properties. According to her, plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 6 constitute a joint Hindu undivided family. She and defendant Nos. 1 to 6

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

continued to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. According to her, the father of the plaintiff by name Muninagappa acquired the right title and possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of the

¶40

Partition Deed dated 06.09.1971. It is stated that, recently plaintiff came to know about the intention of the defendant Nos.3 to 5 to sell the suit schedule property to defraud the plaintiff. Even Item No. 1 of the schedule property is sold to defendant No. 7. Plaintiff is not a party of the said Sale Deed. It is stated that, in the second week of September 2024, plaintiff received information through villagers about the fraudulent transaction. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that, if defendant Nos. 1 to 6 further alienates Item Nos. 2 and 3 schedule properties, she will deprive of her legitimate share in the schedule properties.

¶41

4. Before that Trial Court defendant Nos. 1 to 6

¶42

did not appear and therefore they were placed ex-parte.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Defendant No. 7 alone appeared and resisted

¶46

the interim application denying the entire assertions made in the application. It is contented that, defendant No. 7 purchased item No. 1 schedule property under registered Sale Deed dated 28.05.2001. As per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the said alienation was much prior to 20.12.2004. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim the right in a property in question which is purchased by defendant No. 7. There is no cause of action.

¶47

The learned Trial Court framed relevant points for consideration and answered them partly in the affirmative and ultimately the application came to be rejected against defendant No.7 in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. This is how now the appellant/plaintiff is before this Court.

¶48

7. Having heard the arguments of both the sides,

¶49

it is noticed that, plaintiff has filed suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/3^rd share in all the

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

schedule properties by metes and bounds. She has prayed to effect a partition and allot her 1/3^rd share in the schedule property. So also has prayed that the Sale Deed dated 28.05.2001 executed in favour of the defendant

¶53

No.7 is not binding on plaintiff share. Evidently as observed by the Trial Court, the said property was sold much prior to 20.12.2004 i.e., the period prescribed under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that, if defendant Nos. 1 to 6 sells other properties also, she will be deprived of her 1/3^rd share in the same. Evidently defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are placed ex-parte before the Trial Court. In this appeal also

¶54

the notice is dispensed against them. It is the apprehension of the plaintiff that, if defendant No. 7 again sells the property, there will be multiplicity of proceedings and therefore the temporary injunction has to be granted against defendant No. 7 also.

¶55

As against this submission, the counsel for

¶56

defendant No. 7 submits that, as of now defendant No. 7

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

has no intention to sell the property, which is purchased

¶60

under registered Sale Deed in the year 2001. He submits that, when alienation has taken place much prior to 20.12.2004, the question of application of the provisions

¶61

of the Hindu Succession Act so amended in 2005 doesn't arise at all. The Sale Deed dated 28.05.2001 is protected in view of the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.

¶62

Having noticed the nature of the suit so filed by the plaintiff seeking partition of the schedule properties, the grievance of the plaintiff is that, she has got 1/3^rd share in the schedule properties. As rightly

¶63

observed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff is relying upon the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and wants to claim her alleged share in the schedule property, her legitimate claim is to be decided by the Trial Court in a full fledged trial. In view of the rival submissions to protect the rights of the plaintiff, it is just and proper to pass the

¶64

same order. Hence, as there is apprehension of the plaintiff that defendant No. 7 is also trying to alienate the

¶65

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

property, if so, if defendant No. 7 alienates the schedule property, such alienations are subject to the doctrine of lis pendens .

¶69