A temporary injunction cannot be granted if the claimant does not have a valid legal claim over the property in question, particularly in light of established family partitions.

JUDGMENT

1. Defendant No. 9 filed M.F.A. No. 101019/2021 calling in question the common order dtd. 13/8/2021 passed in O.S. No. 348/2019 allowing I.A. No. 1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. M.F.A. No. 101020/2021 is filed challenging the order dismissing his application I.A. No. 10 filed for vacating the temporary injunction granted against him.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2. Plaintiffs have filed the suit O.S. No. 348/2019 against defendant Nos. 1 to 9 seeking declaration that the sale deeds dtd. 22/4/2003 and 2/2/2019 in respect of suit properties bearing R.S. No. 128/1A and 128/8 executed in favour of defendant Nos. 6 to 8 and 9 respectively are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in actual possession of the suit properties. They had also claimed relief of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from disturbing or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

3. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction against the defendants in respect of R.S. No. 128/1A and 128/8 from alienating, transferring or creating any third party interest on it during the pendncy of the suit.

4. Initially the trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 9 filed an application I.A. No. 10 under Order 39 Rule 4 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC to vacate the interim order of temporary injunction. The trial Court considered both these applications together and a common order was passed on 13/8/2021, allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction and rejecting I.A. No. 10 filed by the defendant No.9.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No. 9 is before this Court.

6. Heard Sri Vithal S. Teli, learned counsel for appellant in both the appeals and Sri Sangram S.Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in M.F.A. No. 101020/2021.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that paragraph no.5 of the plaint makes it clear that the plaintiffs have taken a specific stand that there was a partition in the family and Sy. No. 128/1A and 178/3 were allotted to the share of Appanna and while Sy. No. 128/8 and 178/1 were allotted to the share of his brother Nagappa. When the plaintiffs categorically state that Sy. No. 128/8 was allotted to the share of Nagappa, the trial Court committed an error in granting temporary injunction in respect of the said property which was in fact sold by Rudrappa, the defendant No.1, who is the son of Nagappa. Once there is partition and the property in question was allotted to the share of Nagappa, it devolved on defendant No.1 and he sold it in favour of defendant No.9. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays for allowing both the appeals.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 opposing the appeals submitted that even though plaintiffs have stated regarding the partition between two brothers- Appanna and Nagappa and allotting R.S. No. 128/8 in favour of Nagappa, there was subsequent amendment to the plaint and several issues were framed by the trial Court. Since the suit is pending before the trial Court, defendant No. 9 is not a bonafide purchaser and hence the trial Court rightly granted temporary injunction and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence, he prays for dismissal of both the appeals.

9. Perused the materials on record.

10. The point that arises for consideration in these appeals is:

Whether the impugned order in respect of R.S. No. 128/8 of Madwal village calls for interference by this Court?

11. My answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following:

REASONS

12. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. As stated above, it is the specific contention of the plaintiffs in paragraph no. 5 of the plaint that there wa