Sri Kariyappa Vs Smt Manjushree B N

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26996 MFA No. 6814 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6814 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI KARIYAPPA S/O. LATE HANUMA @ HANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/A NO.22/A, 9^TH CROSS 2^ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU - 560086.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. MANJUSHREE B. N. W/O. LATE HARISH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶13

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

KUMARI YAKSHITHA H D/O. LATE HARISH AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER / NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. MANJUSHREE B. N.

¶15

RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO.22/A, 1^ST FLOOR 9^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU - 560086.

¶16

SRI SATHISH

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26996 MFA No. 6814 of 2024

HC-KAR

S/O. KARIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

SRI SURESH S/O. KARIYAPPA

¶22

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶23

RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 R/AT NO.22/A, GROUND FLOOR 9^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU - 560086.

¶24

SMT. LALITHAMMA D/O. MUDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶25

SMT. SAROJAMMA D/O. MUDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶26

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA D/O. MUDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶27

SMT. PANKAJA D/O. MUDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶28

SRI RAMEGOWDA @ RAMANNA GOWDA S/O. HANUMA @ HANUMEGOWA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

¶29

SMT. MAYAMMA W/O. LATE LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶30

SRI H. KEMPAIAH S/O. HANUMA @

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26996 MFA No. 6814 of 2024

HC-KAR

HANUMEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O. RAMANNA D/O. HANUMA @ HANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶36

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. GANGA D/O. HANUMA @ HANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

¶37

RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 13 ARE RESIDING AT BYRASANDRA VILLAGE BELLURU HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571418.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE for R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.04.2025, NOTICE TO R3 TO R13 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶40

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(R) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.I FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.2208/2024 ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.

¶41

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

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:26996 MFA No. 6814 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶46

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶47

This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who was arrayed as defendant No.1 before the trial Court, challenging the order dated 11.09.2024 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of of CPC in O.S.No.2208/2024 by VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. By the said order, the trial Court allowed the said application and restrained the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the first floor of the house in item No.1 of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit.

¶48

The suit was instituted by respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs therein, seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, an application, as referred to above, was filed. Upon contest by the parties, the trial Court allowed the said application.

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26996 MFA No. 6814 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

It is the contention of the learned counsel for

¶52

appellant–defendant No.1 that there was neither any necessity nor justification for the order passed on I.A.No.I at the instance of respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs. It is submitted that, subsequent to the institution of the partition suit in O.S.No.2208/2024 by the plaintiffs, the appellant, who is defendant No.1 therein, instituted a separate suit against Smt. Manjushree B.N., respondent No.1 herein, seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing her to quit and hand over the vacant possession of the B-schedule property.

¶53

3.1 It is further submitted that, in the event of her failure to comply such direction, appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law for recovery and delivery of possession of the said property to the plaintiff therein, who is the appellant herein. He further submits that the appellant-defendant No.1 is not making any attempt either to evict or otherwise illegally dispossess respondent Nos.1

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:26996 MFA No. 6814 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

and 2-plaintiffs from item No.1 of the suit schedule property except through due process of law.

¶58

3.2 It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellant–defendant No.1 that the observations and findings recorded by the trial Court while passing the impugned order on I.A.No.I are likely to prejudice his case during the course of trial. It is therefore submitted that the appellant-defendant No.1 has approached this Court seeking to set aside the said order dated 11.09.2024 passed on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.2208/2024 by the trial Court.

¶59

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2–plaintiffs vehemently contended that the trial Court has committed no illegality in passing the impugned order on I.A.No.I. It is submitted that the said order has been passed only to protect the possession of respondent Nos.1 and 2–plaintiffs in respect of the first floor of the house in item No.1 of the suit schedule property.

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:26996 MFA No. 6814 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

4.1 It is further submitted that the appellant– defendant No.1 is the father-in-law of respondent No.1. The husband of respondent No.1 has passed away. Respondent No.1, being a widow, is residing in the property along with her minor child. Therefore, no prejudice, hardship or irreparable injury would be caused to the appellant–defendant No.1 by grant of the impugned order on I.A.No.I.

¶64

4.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2–plaintiffs that both the suits have been clubbed together and are being tried jointly, with common evidence being recorded therein. It is further submitted that the cases are now at the stage of recording evidence. Therefore, no hardship, prejudice or inconvenience would be caused to the appellant–defendant No.1 if the impugned order is allowed to continue. Hence, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the appeal.

¶65

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:26996 MFA No. 6814 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Having heard the learned counsels for the

¶68

parties and upon consideration of the material placed on record, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. However, since issues have already been framed in both the suits and the matters have progressed to the stage of trial, the proceedings may continue in accordance with law. Adequate opportunity shall be afforded to both parties to adduce their evidence and establish their respective cases with reference to the issues already framed by the trial Court.

¶69

In view of the fact that the appellant-defendant No.1 has already instituted a separate suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing respondent No.1 herein to quit and hand over the vacant possession of the B-schedule property in accordance with law, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality, perversity or good ground or cogent reason is made out to interfere

¶70