Dismissed¶81

Sri Ramaiah v. Sri Obaleshwara

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2025MFA/5777/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; MFA No. 5777 of 2014 (CPC); Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar; decided 11.03.2025; temporary injunction; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC appeal; suit for partition and separate possession; ancestral and joint family properties; previous oral partition; mutation extract IHC No.8/1989-90; Annexure-J; registered sale deed dated 26.12.2013; prima facie case; balance of convenience; irreparable loss; restraint on alienation and third-party rights; O.S.No.5186/2011; XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru; direction to dispose suit within nine months.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the Trial Court's order of temporary injunction stands undisturbed, with a direction to the Trial Court to decide the suit within nine months. ¶81

Sri Ramaiah Vs Sri Obaleshwara — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the Trial Court's order of temporary injunction stands undisturbed, with a direction to the Trial Court to decide the suit within nine months.

¶81

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court correctly granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property, i.e., whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case with balance of convenience in his favour and risk of irreparable loss. +1 more

¶79

Court's answer

The Trial Court was correct in holding that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for grant of an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienation; its order needs no interference.

¶79

Ratio / Principle

The existence of a previous partition in the family is a disputed fact to be adjudicated during the trial; this Court did not decide it at the interlocutory stage.

¶76

Key takeaways

On perusal of the mutation extract (Annexure-J), there is no mention that the plaintiff's father was granted a share in the property.ratio¶74
Prima facie, defendant No.6 and his children had already sold some of the suit properties by registered sale deed dated 26.12.2013, which supported the grant of the injunction.ratio¶76
The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the pending suit (O.S.No.5186/2011, filed 2011) within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC by defendant Nos.9 and 13 to 21 of O.S.No.5186/2011 (partition suit, XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) against the order dated 13.08.2014 allowing I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC, granting temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties or creating third-party rights. The defendants pleaded a prior oral partition mutated in the revenue records (IHC No.8/1989-90, 1989; Annexure-J mutation extract), but on perusal the extract nowhere shows that the plaintiff's father was granted a share; the existence and equity of the alleged partition were held to be disputed facts for the full-fledged trial. Prima facie, defendant No.6 and his children had already sold part of the properties under a registered sale deed dated 26.12.2013; the plaintiff-coparcener was found to have made out a prima facie case, with balance of convenience favouring him and irreparable loss otherwise likely. Held: the Trial Court's order is correct and needs no interference; the appeal is dismissed; the Trial Court is further directed to dispose of the suit, pending since 2011, within nine months. (Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.; decided 11.03.2025.)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10271 MFA No. 5777 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5777 OF 2014 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. RAMAIAH S/O LATE OBALAPPA @ OBALI SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS L.RS

¶9

a) SMT. BYLAMMA W/O LATE RAMAIH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O NO.11, SHETTIHALLI , JALAHALLI WEST, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 015. (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.08.2024)

¶10

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. H. RUDRESHA GOWDA S/O N. HONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O NO. W-352 SECTOR-III, H M T COLONY JALAHALLI POST BANGALORE – 560 013.

¶12

SRI. OMSHIVAIAH S/O SRI RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT SHETTIHALLI YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

¶13

SMT. DALAMMA D/O SRI RAMAIAH

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10271 MFA No. 5777 of 2014

¶15

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT SHETTIHALLI YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

¶16

SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT SHETTIHALLI YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

¶17

SMT. OBAMMA D/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT SHETTIHALLI YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

¶18

SRI. M. RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE K. MUTHU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O NO. 31, BEML LAYOUT

¶19

1^ST STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR 4^TH BLOCK, BANGALORE – 79

¶20

SRI. G. SRINIVASALU S/O VENKTESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O NO. 8, 11^TH MAIN BEHIND SRIRAM TEMPLE 2^ND CROSS, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI JALAHALLI WEST BANGALORE – 560 075.

¶21

SRI. B. VENKATARAMA S/O LATE B. NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O NO. 3, 1^ST FLOOR 12^TH B MAIN MUTHYALAMMANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 054.

¶22

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10271 MFA No. 5777 of 2014

¶23

SRI YETHINDRA KUMAR KAMAL S/O R N KAMAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O AT NO. 43, 1^ST CROSS LAKE VIEW ROAD RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT K G HALLI, JALAHALLI WEST BANGALORE – 560 015

¶24

…APPELLANTS

¶25

(BY SRI. S R HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE( VC))

¶26

AND:

¶27

SRI. OBALESHWARA S/O LATE OBALAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE (GATE PALYA) YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

¶28

SMT. LAKKAMMA W/O LATE OBALAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

¶29

SMT. OBAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS

¶30

3a. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, H/O LATE OBAMMA S/O LATE HANUMANTAPPA R/AT GEDDALAHALLI VILLAGE, RMV LAYOUT, 21ND STAGE, POOJARY COLONY, SANJAYANAGARA POST, BANGALORE- 560 094

¶31

SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE GALI HANUMAIAH

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10271 MFA No. 5777 of 2014

¶33

D/O OBALAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶34

SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O LATE OBALAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶35

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE BYLAPPA OBALAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶36

SRI. MAHADEVAPPA S/O LATE OBALAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶37

SRI. SADASHIVAIAH S/O LATE OBALAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶38

SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE OBALAPPA @ OBALI SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS L.RS

¶39

a) SMT. MUNIHANUMAKKA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE (GATE PALYA), JALAHALLI WEST POST, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 015 SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY 9(b) to 9 (f).

¶40

b) KADRAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O NOO. 1762, HARISH NILAYA GEDALAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10271 MFA No. 5777 of 2014

¶42

R.M.V. 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 094.

¶43

c) DALAMMA, D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, W/O VENKARAMANPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE (GATE PALYA), JALAHALLI WEST POST, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 015 PRESENTLY R/AT A.K. COLONY, HARAHANAGUNTE, DASANAPURA, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 561 62.

¶44

d) SRI. S.M. SHIVRAM, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE (GATE PALYA), JALAHALLI WEST POST, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 015.

¶45

e) SRI. GURUSHIVAIAH, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O NEAR RAGAVENDRA TEMPLE, SEHTTIHALLI MAIN ROAD, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 015.

¶46

f) SRI. MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10271 MFA No. 5777 of 2014

¶48

R/O SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE (GATE PALYA), JALAHALLI WEST POST, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 015.

¶49

SRI. R. RAVISHANKAR SINDE DECESED BY HIS LRS

¶50

a) SMT LAKSHMI SHIVASHANKAR S/O LATE SHIVASHANKAR AGED MAJOR

¶51

b) MURALI SHIVASHANKAR S/O LATE SHIVASHANKAR AGED MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 10a, R/AT NO. 403, 17^TH CROSS 6^TH MAIN, BEML LAYOUT BASAVESHWARANAGARA BANGALORE-79. DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TQ.

¶52

SMT. M. THAYAMMA W/O KADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O NO. 1762/1 GEDDALAHALLI RMV 2^ND STAGE BANGALORE – 560 094.

¶53

NOTE: THE DEFENDANT NO.12 DIED ABOUT 3 MONTHS BACK PRIOR TO PASSING OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRAIL COURT. HIS L.RS HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD IN TRAIL COURT. HENCH HE IS DESCRIBED AS DEAD IN THIS APPEAL, AND HIS L.R.S ARE NOT MADE AS PARTIES IN THIS APPEAL.

¶54

…RESPONDENTS

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10271 MFA No. 5777 of 2014

¶56

(BY SRI. C P DHANJAYA ADVOCATE FOR R10(A); SRI. C.RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R9(B,D AND F); V/O DATED 19.06.19, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O DATED 30.07.19, NOTICE TO R2, R4, R5 AND R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R8 AND R11 ARE SERVED; V/O DATED 22.01.25, NOTICE TO R6 AND R9 (C) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT; R9(E) IS SERVED; V/O DATED 01.08.24, R3 AND R3(A) ARE DELETED)

¶57

THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED.13.08.2014 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO.5186/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING I.A. NO.1 FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC, FOR T.I.IN TIME.

¶58

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

¶59

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶60

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶61

Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶62

Defendant Nos.9 and 13 to 21 in O.S.No.5186/2011 have preferred this appeal challenging

¶63

the order dated 13.08.2014 passed on I.A.No.I filed under

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10271 MFA No. 5777 of 2014

¶65

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for temporary injunction in O.S.No.5186/2011 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short), thereby, the Trial Court has allowed the application by granting an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or anybody claiming through them from alienating or creating any third party rights over the suit schedule property.

¶66

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

¶67

The plaintiff has filed suit for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds claiming that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties. The plaintiff with an apprehension that the defendants have sold out some of the properties and thus it affects the right of the plaintiff to claim share in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, filed an application for

¶68

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:10271 MFA No. 5777 of 2014

¶70

seeking an order of temporary injunction against the defendants and that is allowed by the Trial Court.

¶71

The contention of the defendants is that there

¶72

was earlier partition in the family and it was mutated in the revenue records as per IHC No.8/1989-90 in the year 1989, wherein all the properties are divided between coparceners and the said partition was acted upon. Thus, in this way there is no joint family properties hence, the suit is not maintainable.

¶73

As per the defendants, the partition effected in the family was oral partition and it was acted upon by entering names of the respective coparceners in the revenue records. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Annexure-J to the appeal memorandum is the mutation extract which proves the fact that there was partition in the family.

¶74

Upon perusing the said document there is no mentioning that the plaintiff’s father was also granted

¶75

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10271 MFA No. 5777 of 2014

¶76

share in the property. The previous partition in the family is a matter of disputed fact to be adjudicated during the trial. Whether there was previous partition or even if there was previous partition or whether the property is equally distributed between the coparceners according to their value and extent are all to be considered during the full-fledged trial. The Trial Court by convincing prima facie that defendant No.6 and his children have sold some of the properties by virtue of registered sale deed dated 26.12.2013, therefore, the Trial Court is of the opinion that since the plaintiff is also entitled share in the suit schedule properties being coparcener and find that defendant No.6 and his children have already sold some of the properties and in such an event if temporary injunction is not granted, then the defendants may alienate the land which affect the right of claim of share of the plaintiff. Therefore, by forming opinion that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience and if an order of temporary injunction is not granted restraining the defendants from alienation then the plaintiff would be

¶77

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10271 MFA No. 5777 of 2014

¶78

put into irreparable loss. Accordingly, granted an order of temporary injunction.

¶79

When certain disputed facts are emerged by the very pleading of the defendants in the written statement that there was previous partition in the family and this fact has to be adjudicated during trial and also there is prima facie case is made out that defendant No.6 and his children have sold some of the properties through registered sale deed. Therefore, in this regard, the Trial Court is correct in holding that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case for grant of an order of temporary injunction for the reasons discussed above, which is needs no interference. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be

¶80

dismissed .

¶81