Disposed¶55

Smt Bhagirathi W/O Baburao Balulad v. Pandugouda S/O Venkanagouda Patil

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2026MFA/105921/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MFA No.105921 of 2024, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad; decided 18.02.2026 by Justice Lalitha Kanneganti. Keywords: temporary injunction; compensation amount; partition and separate possession; 1/4th share; joint family property; fixed deposit nationalized bank; Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1(R) CPC; O.S.No.273/2022 Mudhol; Upper Krishna Project; defendants 2 and 3 v. plaintiffs.

What did the court decide?

Order on I.A.No.4 dated 15.10.2024 modified: appellant/defendant No.3 entitled to withdraw 50% of the amount; remaining 50% to be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank, subject to the result of the appeal; appeal disposed of and all I.As. in the appeal closed. ¶55

Smt Bhagirathi W/O Baburao Balulad Vs Pandugouda S/O Venkanagouda Patil — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2644 MFA No. 105921 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.105921 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. BHAGIRATHI W/O. BABURAO BALULAD, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. WAR NO.V, SIDRAMESHWAR NAGAR, YADAWAD ROAD, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-583236.

¶10

SANJEEVRADDI S/O. BABURAO BALULAD, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. EXCISE INSPECTOR AND AGRI., R/O. STATE EXCISE OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580025.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. PRASHANT S.HOSMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

PANDUGOUDA S/O. VENKANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND M D IN KMF KALABURGI, R/O. SUJATA NIVAS, WARD NO.II, PLOT NO.31, BILLUR NAGAR, OPP. S.N. MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAGALKOT, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT-587101.

¶16

ADARSH S/O. PANDUGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. SUJATA NIVAS, WARD NO.II,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2644 MFA No. 105921 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

PLOT NO.31, BILLUR NAGAR, OPP. S.N. MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAGALKOT, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT-587101.

¶20

KUMARI. SAHASRA D/O. PANDUGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, SUJATA NIVAS, WARD NO.II, PLOT NO.31, BILLUR NAGAR OPP. S.N., MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAGALKOT, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT-587101.

¶21

ADITYA S/O. PANDUGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, SUJATA NIVAS, WARD NO.II, PLOT NO.31, BILLUR NAGAR, OPP. S.N. MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAGALKOT, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT-587101.

¶22

BABURAO S/O. VENKAPPA BALULAD, AGE. 77 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND PENSIONER, R/O. WARD NO.V, SIDRAMESHWAR NAGAR, YADAWAD ROAD, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-583236.

¶23

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-583236.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. GIRISH A.YADWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. MAHANTESH R.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5; NOTICE TO R6 IS SERVED)

¶26

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 104 READ WITH ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON I.A. NO.4 IN O.S. NO.273/2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MUDHOL, DATED 15.10.2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2644 MFA No. 105921 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

Aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.4 passed in O.S.No.273/2022 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol (for short ‘the Trial Court’), the defendant No.2 and 3 are before this Court.

¶33

The respondents 1 to 4 herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. They filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession and also sought for allotment of 1/4^th share in the suit schedule property. I.A.No.4 was filed by the plaintiff to grant temporary injunction against defendant No.3 restraining him from withdrawing the compensation amount in respect of the suit property. By order impugned, the Trial Court allowed the application by restraining the defendant No.3 from receiving the revised compensation amount in respect of the suit property until further orders.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2644 MFA No. 105921 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶38

appellant/defendant No.3 submits that when the

¶39

appellant/defendant No.3 is claiming 1/4^th share in the suit schedule property, the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the I.A.No.4 restraining the defendant No.3 from receiving his share

¶40

of amount. It is admitted that the plaintiff is not entitled for any amount. Even if for arguments sake, if he is entitled for any amount, it would be only 1/4^th share of the said compensation amount and there ought not to have been any injunction restraining defendant No.3 from receiving the compensation.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶42

respondent/plaintiff submits that the Trial Court had rightly passed an order restraining the appellant/defendant No.3 from receiving the compensation amount for the suit property. It is submitted by the counsel that the defendant No.3 is not entitled to withdraw 3/4^th amount.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.1 does not dispute the fact that they have not filed any objections

¶44

to the said application filed by the plaintiff and they have not taken any stand with regard to the same. However, it is

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2644 MFA No. 105921 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

submitted that the plaintiff cannot withdraw 3/4^th amount and at best he can withdraw half of the amount.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsels on either side perused the material on record. The suit is for partition and the plaintiff has sought for 1/4^th share in the suit schedule property. I.A.No.4 was filed seeking to restrain the dependent No.3 from receiving the compensation, as property involved in the matter is the joint family property. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.3, even assuming that it is the joint family property and when the plaintiff is seeking only 1/4^th share, the grant of injunction by the Trial Court restraining the defendant from receiving the entire compensation amount is without any basis. Hence, this court is passing the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The order on I.A.No.4 passed in O.S.No.273/2022 dated 15.10.2024 by the

¶51

Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, is modified to the extent that the appellant/defendant No.3 is entitled to

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2644 MFA No. 105921 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

withdraw 50% of the amount and remaining 50% of the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit, in any nationalized bank and the same shall be subject to the result of this appeal.

¶55

(ii) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.

¶56

(iii) All I.As., in this appeal stand closed.

¶57

Sd/JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶58

YAN CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Smt Bhagirathi W/O Baburao Balulad v. Pandugouda S/O Venkanagouda Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bhagirathi W/O Baburao Balulad v. Pandugouda S/O Venkanagouda Patil

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

The Deputy Director, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Gangawwa Sadashiv Jeeragal D/O Late Sadashiv Jeergal and W/O Kalappa Jadar Vs Basappa S/O Kadappa Jeeragal

Vittal Vs the Secretary

Mr Anand Joteppa Hosur Vs Smt. Pushpa W/O Joteppa Hosur

Sri Pugazhendi K S/O Kannapan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Hema W/O Basavaraj Dalwai Vs State of Karnataka