JUDGMENT :

(M.G. UMA, J.)

The appellant in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.100477 of 2021 being the plaintiff in O.S.No.286 of 2019 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mudhol, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') is impugning the order dated 17.04.2021 passed in the said suit on IA No.4 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, whereunder, the said application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 who were defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the suit came to be allowed, as a result of which, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.6 to 10 were temporarily restrained from causing damages to the crop standing in the land bearing R.S.Nos.55, 59, 60/1 and 60/3 situated at Melligeri Village, and obstructing the enjoyment of said lands by defendant Nos.1 to 5, till further orders. The appellants in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.100500 of 2021 being defendant Nos.6 and 7 are impugning the very same order passed by the Trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.100477 of 2021 filed the suit in O.S.No.286 of 2019 before the Trial Court against defendant Nos.1 to 10 seeking a decree declaring that she is having 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties and for partition and separate possession of her share and also for a consequential relief of restraining the defendants permanently from obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties.

3. It is contended by the plaintiff before the Trial Court that deceased Mallappa @ Mallanagounda and deceased Bhagirathi are her parents. Defendant Nos.1 and 6 are her brothers and defendant No.10 is her sister. The propositus Mallanagouda died during 2012 and Bhagirathi had pre-deceased him as she died in the year 2004. Plaintiff and defendants are the members of Hindu undivided joint family and they are in joint, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, which are described in Schedules B to F. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 4 to 6 and 10 being the class-I heirs of the propositus, are having 1/4th share each in the schedule properties.

4. It is stated that defendant No.8 who is the son of defendant No.6 had filed similar suit for partition and separate possession of the schedule properties in O.S.No.29 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Jamakhandi. The plaintiff herein was arrayed as defendant No.6 in the said suit and she had filed her written statement and the counter claim, seeking her share in the suit properties. The said suit came to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, but the Court had not taken note of the counter claim filed by the plaintiff herein.

5. It is contended by the plaintiff that the relationship between the parties was strained and the defendants started causing obstruction to the plaintiff's joint, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. When the plaintiff verified the revenue records, she came to know that defendant Nos.1 and 6 got changed the record of rights in respect of the suit schedule properties and defendant No.1 got mutated the names of defendant Nos.2 to 5 in some of the record of rights. Similarly, defendant No.6 has also got mutated the names of defendant Nos.7 to 9 in some of the record of rights relating to 'B' schedule property. The said mutation entries standing in the names of defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7 are not binding on the plaintiff.

6. It is further contended by the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 to 6 have purchased the suit schedule 'C' to 'F' properties, out of the joint family nucleus and therefore, those properties are also joint family properties which are liable for partition. Plaintiff is having 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties. It is stated that the cause of action for the suit arose during December, 2018 when the defendants refused to effect partition and allot her 1/4th share in the joint family properties. Therefore, the plaintiff prays for