JUDGMENT :

This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.7512/2015 is directed against the impugned order dated 07.02.2020 whereby the application of temporary injunction filed by the appellants was rejected by the Trial Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. K.Suman for appellants, the learned counsel Sri. S.Mohan for respondent Nos.1 and 4 and the learned counsel Sri. N.Jagadish Baliga for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record. Respondent No.5Lokesha, having been served remained unrepresented and not chosen to contest the appeal.

3. The material on record indicates that, the appellant-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule property and for other reliefs. In the first instance, the suit schedule property comprised of only one item of immovable property bearing Sy.No.4/2 measuring 16 guntas. The appellants filed I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating and encumbering the said item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. The said application having been allowed by the trial Court order dated 24.06.2016, the defendants Nos.1 and 4 preferred an appeal in MFA No.5981/2016 before this Court. By order dated 23.03.2017, this Court disposed of the said appeal inter alia holding as under:

“8. In view of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that on the one hand, the plaintiffs claim that the suit schedule property is joint family property and on the other hand, the defendants claim that suit schedule property is a self acquired property. Whether the suit schedule property is a self acquired property or joint family property as claimed by the parties is to be adjudicated by the trial Court after a full pledged trial.”

4. It can be seen from the aforesaid order passed by this Court that, this Court taking note of the fact that the question whether the property was a joint family property as alleged by the plaintiffs or whether it is selfacquired property as alleged by the defendants is to be adjudicated only after full fledged trial and that it would be just and expedient to and direct the parties not to alienate and encumber the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. This Court also directed the trial Court to expedite the final disposal of the suit subject to cooperation of all parties.

5. Material on records also indicate that, subsequently, the plaintiffs got the plaint amended including yet another property i.e., Sy.No.26/5 measuring 24.5 guntas as item No.2 of plaint schedule property. The defendants filed their additional written statement to the said amended plaint inter alia, contending that, even this item No.2 of the plaintiff schedule property bearing Sy.No.26/5 is also the separate and self-acquired property of the defendants and that the suit of the plaintiff is in respect of this property is also liable to be dismissed.

6. In the meanwhile, plaintiff filed application in I.A.No.4 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 R/W 151 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction against defendants Nos. 1 to 5 from alienating or creating any encumbrance in the said item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. The said application having been opposed by the defendants Nos.1 to 5 the trial Court proceeded to pass impugned order, rejecting the said application, aggrieved by which the plaintiffs are before this Court by way of the present appeal.

7. As noticed above, before plaintiffs got amended the plaint, the suit comprised of only one item of suit schedule property. Having regard to the disputed question of fact and law which arose between the parties with regard to the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, this Court was of the opinion that, it was necessary to direct the parties not to alienate and encumber item No.1 of the plaint-schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. Under such circumsta