Allowed¶38

Akula Sandeep Kumar v. Smt M Prabhavathi

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2025MFA/8446/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; MFA No. 8446 of 2023 (CPC); Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar; decided 19.11.2025; temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC vacated in appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC; purchaser/defendant No.5 from partnership firm in possession is prima facie owner; inter se partner disputes and reconstitution of partnership deed do not affect purchaser's right; disputes relegated to pending arbitration (Commercial Arbitration Application No.9/2022, Commercial Court); interim stay confined to remaining sites; follows M.F.A. No.6405/2023 dated 10.10.2023; O.S.No.476/2023, VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District; Sunrise Group partnership firm.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court is vacated. ¶38

Akula Sandeep Kumar Vs Smt M Prabhavathi — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court is vacated.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No.5 under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC against the temporary injunction granted on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.476/2023 ought to be allowed and the injunction vacated. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The present appeal is squarely covered by this Court's order in M.F.A. No.6405/2023 and connected matters dated 10.10.2023, wherein the appeals filed by purchasers were allowed and the orders of injunction were vacated.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The inter se disputes among the partners of the defendant partnership firm cannot affect the right of the purchaser (appellant/defendant No.5), who is in possession of the suit property under the registered sale deed executed by the partners excluding the plaintiff.

¶33

Key takeaways

Any inner disputes among the partners of the firm are to be worked out by the partners in the pending arbitral proceedings (Commercial Arbitration Application No.9/2022 before the Commercial Court).ratio¶33
The interim stay in the Commercial Court proceedings operates only against alienation of the remaining sites and does not cover the site purchased by appellant No.5, which does not fall within the subject matter of those proceedings.ratio¶33
Appellant No.5 is shown to be the prima facie owner of the property throughout the proceedings, under the partnership deed duly executed by the other partners.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC by the appellant/defendant No.5, a purchaser, against the order dated 05.08.2023 of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, allowing I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.476/2023 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC and granting temporary injunction. The appellant had purchased the site from defendant No.1 partnership firm under a registered sale deed executed by the partners (excluding the plaintiff) after reconstitution of the partnership deed, and is in possession. Held: inter se disputes among the partners cannot affect the purchaser's right, who is prima facie owner; such disputes are to be worked out in the pending arbitral proceedings (Commercial Arbitration Application No.9/2022 before the Commercial Court), whose interim stay covers only the remaining sites and not the site purchased by the appellant. Following this Court's order in M.F.A. No.6405/2023 and connected matters dated 10.10.2023 (whereby purchasers' appeals were allowed and injunctions vacated), the appeal was allowed and the temporary injunction vacated; the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:47909 MFA No. 8446 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8446 OF 2023 (CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

AKULA SANDEEP KUMAR S/O KRISHNA PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. 403 SRI. RESIDENCY, 1ST CROSS, PAPPANNA LAYOUT NEAR MAITHRI BZAARI, MORE SUPER MARKET, V NAGENHALLI, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. M PRABHAVATHI W/O C.R. LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 277, 6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 071.

¶13

REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER MR. R.L. MYUR SUPRATHIK, S/O C.R. LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO. 277, 6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 071.

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47909 MFA No. 8446 of 2023

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

M/S. SUNRISE GROUP REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.780 9TH A MAIN, INDRANAGAR, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 038 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS.

¶17

SRI. B RAJANNA S/O VARADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 25, BENDIGNAHALLI, MANDUR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 049.

¶18

SMT. M.S. DHANALAKSHMI W/O R SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶19

SRI. JYOTHIR TEJOMAY S S/O R SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶20

BOTH RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT 424, 4TH G MAIN ROAD, HRBR LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK, KALYANNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶21

SMT. PUSHPALATHA S,K W/O AKULA SANDEEP KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO. 403, SRI RESIDENCY 1ST CROSS, PAPANNA LAYOUT, NEAR MAITHRI BAZAAR, MORE SUPER MARKET, V NAGENHALLI, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 19.11.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 29.10.2024, NOTICE TO R2 TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47909 MFA No. 8446 of 2023

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO.476/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING IA NO.1 AND 2 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

The present appeal is filed by the appellant/ defendant No.5 questioning the order passed on I.A.Nos.1 & II in O.S.No.476/2023 dated 05.08.2023 by the Court of

¶29

the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction.

¶30

The appellant is defendant No.5 who have purchased the site from defendant No.1 partnership Firm. There were inner disputes among the partners and there was reconstitution of partnership deed. Thereafter, excluding the plaintiff, the other defendants who are partners in the Firm have executed registered sale deed in

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47909 MFA No. 8446 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

favour of appellant/defendant No.5 and by virtue of this, the appellant/defendant No.5 is in possession of the suit property. When this being the fact, the inner disputes among the partners of the partnership Firm, the purchaser's right cannot be affected. This Court in M.F.A. No.6405/2023 and connected matters dated 10.10.2023 ordered allowing the appeals filed by the purchasers and vacated the order of injunction. Therefore, the present appeal is also purely covered by the above said order. Hence, when this being the fact, if there is inner disputes among the partners of the Firm that can be worked out by the partners in the other arbitral proceedings and the said proceedings are pending in Commercial Arbitration Application No.9/2022 before the Commercial Court. In the said proceedings, there is stay not to alienate remaining sites but the site purchased by appellant No.5 is not coming within the subject matter of the proceedings in Commercial Court. Therefore, when appellant No.5 is shown to be the prima facie owner of the property

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47909 MFA No. 8446 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

throughout the proceedings in the partnership deed duly executed by other partners, then the rights of the appellant shall not be affected by virtue of the interim order of injunction. Therefore, it is a fit case to vacate the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶37

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed . The order

¶38

of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court is vacated.

¶39

The trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

¶40

SD/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶41

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Akula Sandeep Kumar v. Smt M Prabhavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akula Sandeep Kumar v. Smt M Prabhavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Asif Pasha. H. a. Vs Mr. Nawaz Ulla Shariff

Baldwin Co-Education Extn.High School Vs M/S Prime Books

Sri. Ashwathanarayana Vs Smt. Akkayamma

Sri Venkatnarayanappa Vs J K Developers

Smt. Veena G Kamath Vs Smt. Ashwini Kamath

M/S Sobha Developers Ltd. Vs M/S Sarveshwar Roller Mills Pvt. Ltd.