1. These Miscellaneous First Appeals are filed by the plaintiff and defendant No.2 against the order dated 17.02.2016 dismissing I.A. Nos.1 and 2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure in O.S. No. 66/2016 by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru restraining defendant Nos.6 to 13, 18, 19, 20 to 24 from changing or altering the nature and character of suit schedule properties and from putting up any construction or alienating, encumbering, till the disposal of the suit.

I Brief facts of the case

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the paternal grand son of one late Krishnappa Reddy, who was the propositus of the Hindu undivided joint family consisting of himself and his children. Krishnappa Reddy had a wife, Lakshmamma, four sons and a daughter viz., K. Narayana Reddy, Gowramma, K. Lakshmaiah Reddy/defendant No.2, K. Srinivasa Reddy, K. Venkataramana Reddy. Plaintiff is the son of defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 is the daughter of defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are children of defendant No.2. Defendant No.6 is the wife of K. Narayana Reddy. Defendant Nos.7 to 9 are the children and Defendant No.10 is the wife of late K. Srinivasa Reddy. Defendant Nos.11 to 13 are the children. Defendant Nos.14 to 17 are the children of Gowramma. Defendant Nos.18 and 19 are the children of defendant No.11.

3. It is further case of the plaintiff that the propositus Krishnappa Reddy expired in the year 1968. His wife Lakshmamma had predeceased. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 19 are members of undivided Hindu joint family governed by Mithakshara law. There was no partition or division in the joint family even today and the joint family owned and possessed various movable and immovable properties which are morefully described in the schedule. It is further contended that Defendant Nos.6, 7, 9 have illegally, high handedly, entered into a registered development agreement on 09.12.2005 with Defendant No.20 in respect of Sy.No.68 item No.1 of suit schedule properties. Similarly, item No.9 bearing No. 45/1 was illegally, high handedly used for running of petrol bunk as Bharat Petroleum Bunk who is also made as Defendant No.21 and further contended that K. Narayana Reddy, the eldest son of late Krishnappa Reddy appears to have entered into various fraudulent transactions in respect of Sy.No.38, item No.8 of the suit schedule properties with Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Cooperative Society and Golden Gate Projects who are also impleaded as defendant Nos.22 to 24, etc. Therefore, he sought for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties as prayed for.

4. The contesting defendants filed the written statement and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession is not maintainable. They have not disputed the fact that Krishnappa Reddy died in the year 1968 and his wife Lakshmamma predeceased Krishnappa Reddy and specifically contended that after the death of Krishnappa Reddy, the father of the plaintiff i.e., K. Venkataramana Reddy also known as K.V. Reddy (defendant No.1) and his brother - defendant No.2 - K. Lakshmaiah Reddy (father of defendant Nos.4 and 5) had pursuant to oral partition taken place in the year 1971, which was reduced into memorandum of partition on 1.5.1982, each have taken half share in the joint family properties. Therefore the suit itself is not maintainable. It is denied that all the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties and the plaintiff has an undivided legitimate share, right, title and interest and possession by birth. According to the contesting defendants, the properties held by Krishnappa Reddy, after his death, were divided and Sri K. Lakshmaiah Reddy (father of defendant Nos.4 and 5) and Venkataramana Reddy (father of the plaintiff and defendant No.3) have taken their shares. It is further denied that the plaintiff demanded any partition and in any event, the