The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8364 OF 2024 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1261 OF 2025 C/W IN MFA NO.8364 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI SIDDAGANGAIAH S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA @ SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2 . SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA @ SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3 . SRI. CHANDRAPPA @ CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA @ SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 4 . SRI. SURESH S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA @ SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 5 . SRI. KUMAR S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA @ SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 VILLAGE, BUDIHAL POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 123. (BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANTS AND: 1 . SRI. B.S. VISHWAS S/O. SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BUDIHAL POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 123. 2 . SRI. SHANKRAIAH S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 3 . SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH S/O. SHANKRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BUDIHAL POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 123. 4 . SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O. LATE K. CHANIGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 24, SRI. LAKSHMICHANNAKESHWA NILAYA, 8TH CROSS, HOSAHALLI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 WARD NO.123, HAMPINAGAR MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040.
Legal Reasoning
5 . SMT. B. P. GAYATHRI W/O. M. M. PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 337, 4TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. 6 . SMT. CHOWDAMMA D/O. B. S. SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 7 . B. S. SUSHMA D/O. B. S. SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NOS.6 AND 7 ARE RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BUDIHAL POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 123. 8 . SIDDALINGAPPA @ SIDDALINGAIAH S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANAHALLI (V), BUDHIHAL POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA(T), BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 123. 9 . SMT. SINGAMMA W/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NAGANAYAKANAHALLI, SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 082. 10 . SMT. MARAKKA @ KUMARI W/O. K. N. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. 4, VALMIKI NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, KODIGEHALLI, THINDLU MAIN ROAD, SHANKARA NAGARA POST, BENGALURU - 560 072. (BY SRI.M.R. RAJGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SRINIVASA.T GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 ON IA 14/15; SRI. D.C.DEEPAK, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.14 AND 15 IN OS.NO. 354/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.14 AND 15 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. IN MFA NO.1261 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI SIDDAGANGAIAH S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA @ SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2 . SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA @ SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3 . SRI. CHANDRAPPA @ CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA @ SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 4 . SRI. SURESH S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA @ SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 5 . SRI. KUMAR S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA @ SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BUDIHAL POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 123. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI. B.S. VISHWAS S/O. SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BUDIHAL POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 123. 2 . SRI. SHANKRAIAH S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 3 . SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH S/O. SHANKRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 BUDIHAL POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 123. 4 . SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O. LATE K. CHANIGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 24, SRI. LAKSHMICHANNAKESHWA NILAYA, 8TH CROSS, HOSAHALLI, WARD NO. 123, HAMPINAGAR MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040. 5 . SMT. B. P. GAYATHRI W/O. M. M. PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 337, 4TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. 6 . SMT. CHOWDAMMA D/O. B. S. SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 7 . B. S. SUSHMA D/O. B. S. SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NOS.6 AND 7 ARE RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BUDIHAL POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 123. 8 . SIDDALINGAPPA @ SIDDALINGAIAH S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANAHALLI (V), BUDHIHAL POST, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA(T), BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 123. 9 . SMT. SINGAMMA W/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NAGANAYAKANAHALLI, SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 082. 10 . SMT. MARAKKA @ KUMARI W/O. K. N. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. 4, VALMIKI NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, KODIGEHALLI, THINDLU MAIN ROAD, SHANKARA NAGARA POST, BENGALURU - 560 072. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.R. RAJGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SRINIVASA.T GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 ON IA 14/15) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 14 IN O.S.NO.354/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.14 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THESE APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR CAV JUDGMENT MFA No.8364/2024 is filed by defendant Nos.8 to 12 in O.S.No.354/2013 challenging the order dated 26.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.15 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.354/2013 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short) thereby, granting an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from changing or not to put up construction on the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit. 2. MFA No.1261/2025 is filed by defendant Nos.8 to 12 in O.S.No.354/2013 challenging the order dated 26.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.14 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.354/2013 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, thereby, granting an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 alienating or creating any sort of charges over the suit schedule properties by the third parties, which are standing in the name of defendants pending disposal of the suit. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiff has filed suit for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds against the defendants for the properties morefully described in the plaint schedule. It is stated that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 12 are members of undivided Hindu Joint Family and the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule properties comprising survey Nos.20 and 44 to the extent of 15 acres 0.2 guntas and 2 acres 38 guntas, were originally Government lands. The plaintiff’s grandfather Siddappa, belonging to Talavar family and was - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 doing Talavari work in the village and the grandfather Siddappa along with his two sons namely Shankaraiah (defendant No.1) and Siddalingappa (defendant No.7) was in possession and cultivation of the suit schedule lands. It is the case of the plaintiff on the basis of Talavari inam lands the Tahasildar, Nelamangala has granted lands in favour of Siddappa and therefore, Siddappa and his legal heirs are in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule lands. 5. After death of Siddappa, his children namely Siddalingappa and Shankaraiah along with their legal heirs have continued in possession of the suit schedule lands. Subsequently, Shankaraiah (defendant No.1) and Siddalingappa (defendant No.7) have jointly filed an application before the Tahasildar, Nelamangala, for re- granting the suit schedule lands. The Tahasildar, Nelamangala, after registering the case making an enquiry and receiving a report has passed order of re-grant on 24.07.1981 in favour of Siddalingappa and Shankaraiah. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 After re-grant of the above suit schedule lands, defendant Nos.1 and 7 along with their legal heirs were in possession. After death of Siddappa, the first son Siddalingappa has been managing the affairs of suit schedule lands after re-grant of the suit schedule lands, the revenue authorities mutated the names of defendant Nos.1 and 7 in the revenue records based on the re-grant order. As per revenue records, the name of defendant No.1 (Shankaraiah) was entered to the extent of 07 acre 21 guntas in land bearing Sy.No.20 and 01 acre 19 guntas in Sy.No.44. Thus, the plaintiff being legal heir of defendant No.1 (Shankaraiah) claims that defendant No.1 and legal heirs are the absolute owners and have right title and interest over the suit schedule properties. 6. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after re-grant of the suit schedule lands, defendant Nos.1 and 7 have not got partitioned the landed properties therefore, the defendants’ claim of partition in the year 1978 is false and created one. It is stated that defendant Nos.1 and 7 filed - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 an application for re-grant in the year 1980 and the re- grant order was passed on 24.07.1981 therefore, there was no partition in the year 1978. Further, it is stated that defendant No.7 and defendant Nos.8 to 12, who are children of defendant No.1 have alienated some of the ancestral properties therefore, if the defendants continue to alienate the suit schedule lands, then there would not be any property left to the plaintiffs. Hence, filed suit for partition and separate possession. 7. Defendant Nos.8 to 12 have contested the suit by filing written statement and asserted that there was partition between defendant No.1 (Shankaraiah) and defendant No.7 (Siddalingappa), under a Panchayath Parikath Deed dated 12.03.1978. As per the partition, suit schedule ‘A’ properties were allotted to the share of defendant No.7 and suit schedule ‘B’ properties were allotted to the share of defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.8 to 12 claim that an extent of 11 acres 0.9 guntas in Sy.No.20 and 02 acre 0.6 guntas in Sy.No.44 were allotted - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 to Siddalingappa, while an extent of 03 acres in Sy.No.20 and 0.25 guntas in Sy.No.44 were allotted to Shankaraiah. Accordingly, the revenue records were mutated vide M.R.No.2/87-88. 8. It is stated that defendant No.1 was Government employee in the Forest Department and had only one son i.e., defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 had acquired some properties from his wife’s family since there was no male issues. Whereas, defendant No.7 had five children and has a large family therefore, considering these circumstances, the partition was effected in the year 1978 and a larger share was given to defendant No.7. With these pleadings in the written statement, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 9. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.14, seeking to restrain the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule lands in favour of third parties, which was allowed by the Trial Court. Additionally, the plaintiff filed - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 I.A.No.15, seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from putting up of any construction or changing the nature of the suit schedule lands, which was also allowed. Being aggrieved by these two orders, defendant Nos.8 to 12 have filed these two Miscellaneous First Appeals. 10. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.R.Ravishankar argued that there was partition in the year 1978 and accordingly defendant No.7 obtained a share and defendant No.12 is constructing warehouse on it. Therefore, there was already severance in the joint family and no more properties were available for partition. The said submission was opposed by the learned senior Counsel Sri. M.R.Rajgopal that the said Siddalingappa and Shankaraiah have filed an application for re-grant in the year 1980 and the re-grant order was passed in the year 1981 hence, there was no question of partition in the year 1978. Therefore, filed suit for partition. Further submitted that defendant Nos.8 to 12 have sold out some - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 of the lands depriving the legitimate right of the plaintiff and if further alienations are taken place, then the plaintiff and other coparceners would suffer loss and injury and would be deprived of getting their equitable shares. Hence, justified the orders passed on both I.A.Nos.14 and 15 and prays to dismiss the appeals. 11. The Trial Court assigned reasons for granting the order of temporary injunction upon the applications filed I.A.Nos.14 and 15 observing that the plaintiff had prima facie shown that the suit schedule lands are ancestral properties and significant portions of the suit schedule lands were sold without retaining any share for future generations. Further, the Trial Court is of the opinion that if the defendants were allowed to continue alienating the suit schedule lands, the plaintiff’s inheritance and claim to a share in the ancestral properties would be diluted therefore, granted an order of temporary injunction. Further the Trial Court assigned reasons that defendant Nos.2, 4 and 8 to 12 were prima facie acting in - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 the bad faith by alienating the suit schedule lands without the plaintiff’s consent. Therefore, these transactions would go to show that if further alienations are made that would affect the right of share of plaintiff’s hence, if an order of temporary injunction is granted it would not cause any injury, loss or harm to the defendants. Therefore, granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties. 12. The Trial Court, after prima facie findings determined that potential complications would arise if suit schedule lands were transferred or alienated to third parties. Therefore, granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or transferring the lands to other parties. The Trial Court while considering the applications I.A.Nos.14 and 15, which sought a temporary injunction not to alter or change the nature of lands are concerned, the Trial Court is of the opinion if the properties are found to be clearly identifiable and the boundaries are easily ascertainable, then only an - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 effective decree for partition would be made and executed. If the nature of the lands are altered, dividing the properties by metes and bounds would become difficult, affecting the right of the plaintiff’s share in the suit schedule lands. Therefore, by forming opinion that maintaining status-quo regarding change of nature of suit schedule lands would enable effective partition by metes and bounds. Accordingly, an order of temporary injunction is granted restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the lands by putting up construction on the lands. 13. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.R.Ravishankar argued that appellant No.5/defendant No.12 had incurred significant expenditure on constructing a warehouse, utilizing only 01 acre of land. If the construction work is halted at this stage, it would cause irreparable injury to the appellant No.5 rather than the plaintiff. Appellant No.5 raised loan from the bank and was now constrained to pay interest without generating revenue from the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 construction and further delay would result in additional losses for appellant No.5. It was submitted that even if the suit was decreed, the plaintiff at the most would get 1/3rd share. Therefore, if appellant No.5 was permitted to make construction that would only cover less than 01 acre and the plaintiff would get more share in the properties according to his legitimate share, which would be easily identifiable. Hence, prays to allow the appeal permitting appellant No.5 to make construction on it and in such an event appellant No.5 would not claim any equity and the construction made on it is subject to result of the suit. Therefore, prays for allowing the appeal in MFA No.8364/2024. 14. Further, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.R.Ravishankar vehemently submitted that the defendants will not alienate the suit schedule lands pending disposal of the suit and therefore, prays to allow the appeal in MFA No.8364/2024 permitting appellant No.5 to make construction on it for the grounds above stated. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 15. Whether there was partition in the year 1978 or not is the question to be considered and decided during full-fledged trial. What are the reasons assigned in the partition effected in the year 1978 giving lesser share to the Shankaraiah is justified or not is the question to be considered during full-fledged trial. Admittedly, Siddappa was in possession and is cultivating the lands along with his sons Siddalingappa and Shankaraiah. Siddalingappa (defendant No.7) and Shankaraiah (defendant No.1) filed an application for re-grant in the year 1980. Admittedly, in the year 1981 an order of re-grant was passed by the Tahasildar, Nelamangala. The Trial Court is correct in passing the order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating and transferring the lands to third parties, since in the event the suit schedule lands are alienated, it would cause deprivation of claiming the legitimate share of the plaintiff when the plaintiff has shown prima facie case for partition therefore, the Trial Court has allowed the application I.A.No.14 restraining the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 defendants from alienating and transferring the properties to third parties. 16. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for appellant No.5/defendant No.12 produced photographs showing that construction of the warehouse is in progress and it is submitted that the construction of warehouse is in less than 01 acre. It is submitted that appellant No.5 by taking loan from the financial institutions is constructing the warehouse. If, at this stage, the construction work is halted, then it would cause more harm to appellant No.5 than the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not entitled to share in the entire extent of land but at the most the share of plaintiff is 1/3rd as per prayer in the plaint. Further the construction of warehouse on the suit schedule land though it is within the area of 01 acre, but would be subject to result of the suit. 17. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant No.5/defendant No.12 undertakes that appellant No.5/defendant No.12 would not claim any equity if the - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 construction work is allowed therefore, for the above said reasons, the Court is of the opinion confirming the order passed on I.A.No.14 restraining the defendants from alienating and transferring the suit schedule lands to third parties, but the order passed on I.A.No.15 restraining defendant No.12/appellant No.5 from putting up the construction of warehouse is to be interfered with. 18. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, construction of warehouse by appellant No.5 though would change nature of lands, but the defendants have not demonstrated how there is potential threat to boundaries and demarking the land by such construction. When appellant No.5/defendant No.12 undertakes not to claim any equity and the construction of warehouse is subject to result of the suit and moreover, the plaintiff’s share is 1/3 in case the suit is decreed therefore, the order passed on I.A.No.15 injuncting from making construction of warehouse is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order passed on I.A.No.15 is set aside. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 19. The construction of warehouse by appellant No.5/defendant No.12 shall be subject to result of the suit and appellant No.5/defendant No.12 shall not claim any equity to this effect and appellant No.5 shall file affidavit in this regard.
Decision
20. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. MFA No.8364/2024 is allowed. ii. MFA No.1261/2025 is dismissed. iii. The order dated 26.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.15 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.354/2013 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, is hereby set aside. iv. The order dated 26.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.14 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.354/2013 on the file of I - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:15958 MFA No. 8364 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1261 of 2025 Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, is hereby confirmed. v. No order as to costs. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA