The Court's decision was based on the principle that the doubtful bona fides in seeking re-partition after a long time lapse influenced the refusal to grant a temporary injunction in a partition suit.

Headnote:
Temporary Injunction - Partition Suit - Court declined to grant temporary injunction to restrain defendants from alienating properties - Plaintiff sought re-opening of partition 13 years after its existence - Bona fides in seeking re-partition doubtful - Appeal dismissed
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and applied for temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the properties. The Trial Court declined the injunction, finding the plaintiff's claim for re-opening of the partition doubtful due to the long time lapse since its existence.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima-facie case for re-opening the partition, and the bona fides in seeking re-partition were doubtful. The Court declined to interfere with the Trial Court's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the properties in a partition suit, considering the long time lapse since the partition and the doubtful bona fides in seeking re-partition.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the doubtful bona fides in seeking re-partition 13 years after its existence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the refusal to grant the temporary injunction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the application for temporary injunction did not survive for consideration, as the Court found no good ground to interfere with the Trial Court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Naik N.R. counsel for the appellant at the time o f admission.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff . In her suit for partition, O.S .No. 985/2017, on the file o f the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, she filed an application for temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the properties. The Trial Court declined to grant temporary in junction finding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima-facie case as the facts disclose that the plaintiff herself has stated that on 26.10 .2004, there came into existence a registered partition deed among the parties. Alleging fraud etc., the plaintiff has sought re-opening of the partition.

3. It is quite evident that 13 years after the partition, the suit came to be filed. So the bona-fides in seeking re-partition is doubtful. In this view, if the injunction is declined by the Trial Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order.

4. Sri Naik N.R. counsel for the appellant submits that if injunction is not granted, the defendants will alienate the property. It is made clear that since the suit is for partition and in case any alienations are made and if ultimately the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, her interest is protected in accordance with Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore appeal is dismissed. IA No. 1/2022 does not survive for consideration. It stands disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document