Sri. Suhas Ramachandra Gowda v. M/S Classmate Properties Partnership Firm

Karnataka HC17 Apr 2026MFA/1080/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (K.S. Hemalekha J., 17.04.2026), MFA No. 1080 of 2026: plaintiff's appeal against vacating of temporary injunction in partition suit O.S. No. 969/2018 dismissed; Trial Court orders — vacation of injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC and permission to defendant No. 8 to alienate Blocks A, C and D reserving Block B for plaintiff's one-fourth share with compensation liability — confirmed; no interim protection since 2022, third-party rights created, no perversity found.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the impugned order dated 14.09.2022 passed on I.A. No. 3 was confirmed. ¶73-75

Sri. Suhas Ramachandra Gowda Vs M/S Classmate Properties Partnership Firm — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the impugned order dated 14.09.2022 passed on I.A. No. 3 was confirmed.

¶73-75

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant has made out a case for interference with the order dated 14.09.2022 vacating the injunction order?

¶56-57

Court's answer

No ground is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 14.09.2022 vacating the injunction; the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and the appeal is dismissed.

¶71

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court adequately safeguarded the plaintiff's interest by reservation of Block B towards the plaintiff's one-fourth share and by making defendant No. 8 liable to compensate the plaintiff's share if the reserved sites fall short; the Trial Court's order is discretionary and there is no perversity warranting interference.

¶71

Key takeaways

The suit property is no longer in its original form; third-party rights have been created and the plaintiff's right stands protected in light of the subsequent order on I.A. No. 10.ratio¶71
The delay in pursuing the present appeal cannot be termed wholly inordinate or unexplained, since the appellant had earlier filed a Miscellaneous Appeal against the vacation order which was withdrawn for want of jurisdiction.ratio¶58
The observations made in this judgment are prima facie in nature and shall not influence the Trial Court while deciding the suit on merits.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 969/2018 (partition and separate possession) against the order dated 14.09.2022 on I.A. No. 3 allowing the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC and vacating the temporary injunction dated 22.11.2018 restraining alienation. Defendant No. 8, a purchaser-developer who had formed about 30 sites in Blocks A, B, C and D, was later permitted by the Trial Court (I.A. No. 10 under S.151 CPC r/w S.52 of the Transfer of Property Act) to alienate Blocks A, C and D on reserving Block B towards the plaintiff's one-fourth share, with liability to compensate if the reserved sites fell short. Held, dismissing the appeal: no interim protection had operated in the appellant's favour since 2022; third-party rights stood created; the plaintiff's interest was adequately safeguarded by the reservation and compensation direction; and the discretionary Trial Court order disclosed no perversity, so no case for interference was made out. Observations are prima facie only and shall not influence the Trial Court on merits. (K.S. Hemalekha, J.)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:21198 MFA No. 1080 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1080 OF 2026 (CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI SUHAS RAMACHANDRA GOWDA S/O DODDABASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.490/4, F-BLOCK, 19^TH MAIN, BEHIND M.C. DONALD, SAHAKAR NAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-92.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI KOUSHIK M.S. & SMT. ANISHA SHERVEGAR, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

M/S. CLASSMATE PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NO.49, 3^RD FLOOR, G.BLOCK, SAHAKAR NAGAR, BANGALORE-92.

¶15

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

REP. BY ITS PARTNER

¶17

SRI R. RAVISHEKAR RAJU.

¶18

SRI DODDABASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE VASUDEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶19

SMT. NARAYAMAMMA W/O DODDABASAVARAJU SINCE DEAD BY LR’s.

¶20

SRI H.D. MANJUNTAHA GOWDA, S/O DODDABASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶21

2^ND & 3^RD RESPONDENTS ARE R/AT NO. UTTANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶22

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21198 MFA No. 1080 of 2026

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU.

¶25

SMT. ASHA D/O DODDABASAVARAJU AND W/O B. BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.41/8, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA, BANGALURU-92.

¶26

SRI G.H. NAGARAJA S/O LATE G. HANUMATHAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶27

SMT. HEMAVATHI W/O NARGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶28

SRI N. VINAY @ SHAM S/O G.H. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶29

5^TH TO 7^TH RESPONDENTS ARE R/AT MATHRU SHRI NILAYA, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI K.K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1; V/O. DATED 27.02.2026, NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-7 D/W)

¶32

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.III IN O.S.NO.969/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC.

¶33

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:21198 MFA No. 1080 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

The present Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 14.09.2022 passed on I.A No. 3 in OS No. 969/2018 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 and vacated the interim injunction dated 22.11.2018.

¶40

The appellant instituted a suit in OS No.

¶41

969/2018 seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. An order of temporary injunction dated 22.11.2018 was granted restraining alienation. Defendant No. 8, claiming to be the purchaser and developer, filed I.A. No. 3 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 which came to be allowed and the injunction was vacated by order dated 14.09.2022. Aggrieved, the appellant had initially filed a Miscellaneous Appeal against

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21198 MFA No. 1080 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the said order, which was subsequently withdrawn for want of jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that no interim order has been operating in favour of the appellant from 2022 onwards. Thereafter, defendant No. 8 filed I.A. No. 10 seeking permission to alienate the property contending that about 30 sites have been formed in Blocks A, B, C and D. The Trial Court by the order dated 02.01.2023 has allowed the application, directed the defendant No. 8 to reserve Block No. B towards one fourth share of the plaintiff and defendant No. 8 was permitted to alienate sites noted A, C, D and defendant No. 8 was liable to compensate the share of the plaintiff in the event the reserved sites will not satisfy the share of the plaintiff.

¶45

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶46

the Trial Court has erred in vacating the injunction without any change in circumstances as required under Order XXXIX Rule 4. It is submitted that suit properties being joint family properties require preservation till final adjudication. It is submitted that the subsequent

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21198 MFA No. 1080 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

application filed by defendant No. 8 seeking permission to sell indicates an attempt to defeat the rights of the appellant and in the absence of an injunction there is a likelihood that a creation of third party rights causing irreparable injury.

¶50

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8 submits that he is a bona fide purchaser and developer having formed 30 sites in Block A, B, C, D after substantial investment. It is submitted that earlier injunction having been vacated, there is no subsisting restraint and the respondent is entitled to deal with the property. Further it is submitted that by filing I.A. No. 10 is only to regularise and seek permission of the Court and not to defeat any right. It is submitted that the Trial Court has protected the right of the plaintiff in the order dated 21.02.2023 on I.A.No. 10, wherein the defendant No. 8 is directed to reserve Block B towards one fourth share of the plaintiff and permitted the defendant No. 8 to alienate

¶51

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:21198 MFA No. 1080 of 2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

other Blocks A, C and D. Hence, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff.

¶54

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶55

contentions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is,

¶56

whether the appellant has made out a case for interference with the order dated

¶57

14.09.2022 vacating the injunction order?

¶58

The Trial Court while allowing I.A No. 3 held that defendant No. 8 has purchased and developed the property. The continuation of injunction would cause hardship and financial loss, and the plaintiff's interests can be protected in Final Decree Proceedings and accordingly, injunction granted earlier was vacated. It is not in dispute that the appellant had initially prosecuted the remedy by filing Miscellaneous Appeal, which was later withdrawn for want of jurisdiction and hence the delay cannot be termed as wholly inordinate or unexplained. However, it is equally

¶59

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:21198 MFA No. 1080 of 2026

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

relevant that from 2022 till date no interim protection has been operating in favour of the appellant. The material on record also indicates that defendant No . 8 had formed 30 sites in Block A, B, C and D and has even filed I.A No. 10 seeking permission to alienate the site. The Trial Court on 21.02.2023 passed the following order :

¶62

“ORDER

¶63

“I.A.No.10 filed by the defendant No.8 U/s. 151 of CPC r/w Sec.52 of Transfer of Property Act is hereby allowed.

¶64

Hereby, directed the defendant No.8 to reserve the Block-B towards 1/4^th share of plaintiff. Defendant No.8 is permitted to alienate the sites noted in Block-A, C and D.

¶65

Defendant No.8 is liable to compensate the share of plaintiff in the event if the reserved sites will not satisfied the share of plaintiff.”

¶66

Thus, the Trial Court has adequately safeguarded

¶67

the interest of the plaintiff by ensuring reservation of

¶68

property and also providing that the defendant No. 8 is liable to compensate the share of the plaintiff in the event

¶69

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:21198 MFA No. 1080 of 2026

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

the reserved sites will not be satisfied to the share of the plaintiff. In light of these developments, the property is no longer in its original form. There is a third party rights been created and the right of the plaintiff is also protected. The order passed by the Trial Court is discretionary and there is no perversity or interference warranted and, in light of the subsequent order, the rights of the plaintiff as stated supra is protected. In view of the subsequent development and absence of interim protection and balancing of equities, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following :

¶72

ORDER

¶73

(i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby

¶74

dismissed.

¶75

(ii) The impugned order passed by the Trial Court on I.A No. 3 is confirmed.

¶76