The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4239 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: NAGARATHNAMMA W/O VENKARAMAYYA H D/O MUNINAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT MALLUR VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 102 (BY SRI. AMBAJI RAO NAJRE, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: 1. MUNINAGAPPA S/O LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka 2. LAKSHMAMMA W/O MUNINAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 3. RAVIKUMAR S/O MUNINAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 4. VINAY KUMAR S/O RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025 HC-KAR 5. VIKAS S/O RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 6. NARAYANASWAMY S/O MUNINAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 7. Y.M. RAMESH S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT YELIYUR VILLAGE AND POST CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110 …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. MARIAPPA M.S, ADVOCATE FOR R7; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.06.2025 NOTICE TO R1 TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.05.06.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.1088/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING IA NO.2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.7 at length. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 05.06.2025 passed in O.S.No.1088/2024 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Devanahalli, wherein the interim application filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking an ad-interim order of temporary injunction by restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 6 or anybody claiming through them from alienating or creating any third party interest in respect of suit schedule property, till the disposal of the suit. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that, the suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the schedule properties. According to her, plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 6 constitute a joint Hindu undivided family. She and defendant Nos. 1 to 6 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025 HC-KAR continued to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. According to her, the father of the plaintiff by name Muninagappa acquired the right title and possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Partition Deed dated 06.09.1971. It is stated that, recently plaintiff came to know about the intention of the defendant Nos.3 to 5 to sell the suit schedule property to defraud the plaintiff. Even Item No. 1 of the schedule property is sold to defendant No. 7. Plaintiff is not a party of the said Sale Deed. It is stated that, in the second week of September 2024, plaintiff received information through villagers about the fraudulent transaction. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that, if defendant Nos. 1 to 6 further alienates Item Nos. 2 and 3 schedule properties, she will deprive of her legitimate share in the schedule properties. 4. Before that Trial Court defendant Nos. 1 to 6 did not appear and therefore they were placed ex-parte. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025 HC-KAR 5. Defendant No. 7 alone appeared and resisted the interim application denying the entire assertions made in the application. It is contented that, defendant No. 7 purchased item No. 1 schedule property under registered Sale Deed dated 28.05.2001. As per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the said alienation was much prior to 20.12.2004. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim the right in a property in question which is purchased by defendant No. 7. There is no cause of action. 6. The learned Trial Court framed relevant points for consideration and answered them partly in the affirmative and ultimately the application came to be rejected against defendant No.7 in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. This is how now the appellant/plaintiff is before this Court. 7. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, it is noticed that, plaintiff has filed suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in all the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025 HC-KAR schedule properties by metes and bounds. She has prayed to effect a partition and allot her 1/3rd share in the schedule property. So also has prayed that the Sale Deed dated 28.05.2001 executed in favour of the defendant No.7 is not binding on plaintiff share. Evidently as observed by the Trial Court, the said property was sold much prior to 20.12.2004 i.e., the period prescribed under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that, if defendant Nos. 1 to 6 sells other properties also, she will be deprived of her 1/3rd share in the same. Evidently defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are placed ex-parte before the Trial Court. In this appeal also the notice is dispensed against them. It is the apprehension of the plaintiff that, if defendant No. 7 again sells the property, there will be multiplicity of proceedings and therefore the temporary injunction has to be granted against defendant No. 7 also. 8. As against this submission, the counsel for defendant No. 7 submits that, as of now defendant No. 7 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025 HC-KAR has no intention to sell the property, which is purchased under registered Sale Deed in the year 2001. He submits that, when alienation has taken place much prior to 20.12.2004, the question of application of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act so amended in 2005 doesn't arise at all. The Sale Deed dated 28.05.2001 is protected in view of the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. 9. Having noticed the nature of the suit so filed by the plaintiff seeking partition of the schedule properties, the grievance of the plaintiff is that, she has got 1/3rd share in the schedule properties. As rightly observed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff is relying upon the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and wants to claim her alleged share in the schedule property, her legitimate claim is to be decided by the Trial Court in a full fledged trial. In view of the rival submissions to protect the rights of the plaintiff, it is just and proper to pass the same order. Hence, as there is apprehension of the plaintiff that defendant No. 7 is also trying to alienate the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24067 MFA No. 4239 of 2025 HC-KAR property, if so, if defendant No. 7 alienates the schedule property, such alienations are subject to the doctrine of lis pendens. 10. With this view, this appeal is disposed of. All the rights of the parties to the suit are kept open. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31