B. Veerappa, J.

This Miscellaneous First appeal is filled by plaintiffs against the order dated 20.8.2016 rejecting I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure made in O.S.NO.101/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura.

2. The plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No. 101/2015 for partition and separate possession in respect of item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties contending that they are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7 and they are entitled to a share etc. The contesting defendants filed written statement, denied the plaint averment and contended that there was panchayath palupatli in the year 1996 which was signed by the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2; and that other joint family properties are not included in the suit schedule and therefore suit for partial partition is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the suit.

3. The plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction only in respect of item No.2 contending that 11th defendant seems to have purchased item No.2 she has been impleaded as a party and she is trying to change the nature of the suit item No.2 etc and therefore, sought for temporary injunction. The said application was resisted by the defendants by filing objections.

4. The Trial Court, considering the entire material on record, by the impugned order dated 20.02.2016 has rejected the application. Hence the present appeal is filed.

5. I have hard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

6. Sri K. Narayana, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application for temporary injunction in respect of item No.2 is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. The plaintiffs filed the suit claiming that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. If any alienation is made or the nature of the property is changed, the very purpose of filing the suit will be defeated and therefore, the Trial Court is not justified in rejecting the application and sought to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7. Per contra, Sri GM.Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 8 and 11 sought to justify the impugned order and strenuously contended that the very suit for partition is not maintainable since there was earlier partition in respect of the suit schedule properties and other properties by way of palupatti executed between the members of the joint family to which the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are signatories. Therefore, the application for temporary injunction is not maintainable and the Trial Court has rightly rejected. Learned counsel further contended that the plaintiff filed two applications in respect of two survey numbers. The Trial Court rejected the application in respect of item No.2. So far as item No.1, application is still pending for consideration. It clearly indicates that plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the application and therefore, sought to dismiss the appeal.

8. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is:

"Whether the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule property, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?"

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record, carefully.

10. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties, contending that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, they are entitled to a share. The