Sri. Ashwathanarayana Vs Sri. Nagaraju

SMT. MAHALAKSHMI C A AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D/O ASHWATHANARAYANA, W/O SRI RAMESH BABU M R , R/AT NO.454, SHARADHAMMA BUILDING, MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE STREET, YALAHANKA BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 064

¶11

SMT. C A JYOTHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O ASHWATHANARAYANA, R/AT NO.47, BYNAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE – 562 157

¶12

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41619 MFA No. 5736 of 2025

¶13

HC-KAR

¶14

SRI SHIVARAJ C A AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O ASHWATHANARAYANA,

¶15

SMT SHILPA R AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, W/O SHIVARAJ C A,

¶16

MASTER. ADITHYAVARDHANA AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, S/O SHIVARAJ C A,

¶17

KUM AADHVIKA ALEKYA AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, D/O SHIVARAJ C A ,

¶18

SL.NO 7 & 8 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN THEIR FATHER NAMELY SRI. SHIVARAJ C A,

¶19

SL.NO.1,2,5 TO 8 ARE R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELEHANKA, BANGALORE – 562 157

¶20

…APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI. BRIJESH CHANDER GURU.,ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SRI. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AND SANJEEVAMMA, R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 562 157

¶24

M/S PRIDE INFRA DEVELOPERS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41619 MFA No. 5736 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

FLAT NO.S1, 27 PARK AVENUE, 24^TH MAIN, 13^TH CROSS, SECTOR-I, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 102

¶28

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI. S. NARESH S/O SRI VENUGOPAL REDDY, R/AT NO.1-9, GUNDLA PALLI, KOLAMASANAPALLI, PALAMANERU, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. LOKESH R., ADVOCATE)

¶31

THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NOs. 1 AND 2 IN OS.NO.440/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 AND 2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with

¶36

consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the

¶37

parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶38

2. This appeal is filed by the appellants/defendants

¶39

calling in question the order dated 02.05.2025 passed on

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41619 MFA No. 5736 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

I.A.Nos.I and II filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2

¶43

read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.440/2025 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Devanahalli¹ , thereby, the orders of temporary injunctions are granted in favour of the plaintiff against defendant No.1 restraining him from further construction over the suit schedule item No.1 property and restraining him from alienating and transferring the suit schedule item No.2 in favour of third parties.

¶44

For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶45

The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition claiming half share in the suit schedule properties and also for declaration to declare that the agreement of sale dated 20.12.2024 is not binding upon the plaintiff. There are two

¶46

items in the schedule, such as suit schedule item No.1 is

¶47

1hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41619 MFA No. 5736 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the house property and suit schedule item No.2 is the land.

¶51

Upon the applications filed by the plaintiff, the Trial Court observed that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants is admitted. Hence, if the suit schedule properties are alienated, then it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, granted the orders of temporary injunctions.

¶52

Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the suit schedule item No.1 property is the house that was given in partition by her mother in favour of defendant No.1, which is reflected in the mutation extract/Panchayath records in the revenue records. Further submitted that the suit schedule item No.2 is the land, which is self-acquired property of defendant No.1, as it was granted by the Government in the name of

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41619 MFA No. 5736 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

defendant No.1 in the year 1999. Further submitted that the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 namely Sanjeevamma had allotted another house, which is not put in the schedule in the plaint in favour of wife of the plaintiff and the mutation is reflected in the revenue records. Hence, submitted that the plaintiff does not have prima facie case and balance of convenience so as to make claim for partition. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal.

¶56

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that so far as suit schedule item No.1 property (house) is concerned, mutating the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue records there is no partition effected, but simply the Khatha has been changed in the name of defendant No.1 as per the statement made by Sanjeevamma. Hence, this document does not amount to partition. Further submitted that so far as suit schedule item No.2 property (land) is concerned, it is a question for trial to be tried before the Trial Court

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41619 MFA No. 5736 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

whether it is an ancestral property or self-acquired property of defendant No.1. Hence, justified the order passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶60

The Trial Court has observed that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute and therefore held that properties are prima facie found to be joint family properties. Therefore, granted an order of temporary injunction.

¶61

In the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants filed I.A.No.2/2025 under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w Section 151 of CPC by producing set of documents and submitted that so far as Item No.1 property is concerned, there is partition and this house property is given to the defendant No.1. Accordingly, revenue mutation came to be effected. This document is not produced before the trial court, but for the first time in this appeal it is produced. Further the counsel for the appellants filed

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41619 MFA No. 5736 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

another document that another house bearing Khata No.6/6/2 was given to the wife of the plaintiff in a partition. This is also not produced before the trial court, but for the first time in this appeal it is produced.

¶65

Learned counsel for the appellants further produced a document of order of grant of the Item No.2 of suit schedule property and submitted that Government has granted the item No.2 property exclusively to the defendant No.1 as his name alone is shown in the said order of grant. Therefore, argued that this is self acquired property of the defendant No.1. This document is not produced before the Trial Court, but for the first time produced before this Court in the appeal. Therefore, the Trial Court had no occasion to consider these three documents.

¶66

In the same way, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent filed some documents and one of the documents is deed of confirmation and submitted that in

¶67

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:41619 MFA No. 5736 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

the said confirmation deed executed on 05.03.2016 confirming the sale effected in the year 1996 by Sanjeevamma and in which the plaintiff and defendants are parties, stating that all have confirmed and recited that there is no partition in the family. Therefore, submitted this document is appreciated by the Trial Court and granted an order of temporary injunction.

¶70

But considering the above said documents filed

¶71

by the learned counsel for the defendants, the Trial Court had no occasion to consider the documents because the documents are produced for the first time in this appeal. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion to remand the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of application I.A.No.I & II and pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity to both parties. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. Till then, the order of temporary injunction is continued till the date of passing of the order by the Trial Court.

¶72

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:41619 MFA No. 5736 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Both parties are given liberty to place any

¶75

additional documents, if they so desire and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

i. The appeal is allowed .

¶78

ii. The impugned order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Devanahalli, in O.S.No.440/2025 on I.A.Nos.I & II, is set aside.

¶79

iii. Matter is remanded to the Trial Court to consider afresh.

¶80

iv. Liberty is given to both parties to place any other additional documents/materials before the Trial Court.

¶81

v. Till consideration of the applications, order of temporary injunction is continued.

¶82

SD/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶83

SRA,DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri. Ashwathanarayana v. Sri. Nagaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ashwathanarayana v. Sri. Nagaraju

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

Sri Babu Reddy Vs Sri Lokesh Reddy

Sri S v Ganesh Vs Sri B Ramachandrappa

Poornaprajna Housing Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs Mr M Vara Prasad Reddy

Smt.Manjula H L Vs Mr. Pramod H.L

Kum. Ayyagiri Prerana Vs Mr. Ravi Ayyagari

Sri. Manjunatha Vs Sri. N. Sampath Kumar