Joint ownership requires the consent of all co-owners for any valid transfer of property; unilateral actions may violate legal rights and warrant protective relief in pending civil suits.

JUDGMENT :

(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.)

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is instituted under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short, "CPC") 1908, by the appellants herein, who are aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channapatna in I.A.No.I in O.S.No.307/2024. In the said application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, the appellants sought for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property, more particularly Item No. 2, pending disposal of the suit. The Trial Court, by the impugned order dismissed the said application which has prompted the appellants to approach this Court seeking redressal by way of an appropriate interim order during the pendency of the suit.

2. The factual matrix of the case, as brought on record, reveals that the suit schedule property originally belongs to one Haider Khan, who is stated to have acquired the same from the joint family income during his lifetime. It is not in serious dispute that Haider Khan had 11 children, and the appellants and respondents are all the descendants and legal heirs of the said Haider Khan. According to the appellants, there was no formal partition of the suit schedule properties during the lifetime of Haider Khan, or at any point thereafter.

3. It is further case of the appellants that, the properties continued to be held and enjoyed jointly by the legal heirs of Haider Khan and were used commonly including for agricultural purposes by several members of the extended family.

4. The appellants specifically contend that, subsequent to the demise of Haider Khan, the name of the first respondent was entered in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property Item No. 2. However, the said mutation is claimed to have been effected solely on the strength of a statement given by the siblings of the first respondent, without there being any formal relinquishment or partition of shares. The appellants allege that, the said mutation was not an act of a transfer of ownership but, was made only for the purpose of managing the property and does not confer absolute ownership rights on the first respondent. Despite this, the first respondent along with respondent Nos. 2 to 8, alleged to have executed an unregistered Sale Agreement with third parties, namely P.Sumati Kumar and P.Vimalchand, for the sale of suit schedule property Item No. 2 for a substantial consideration of Rs.71,21,250/-, of which Rs.30,00,000/- is stated to have been received as advance. The appellants contend that, this act of execution of the Sale Agreement is not only without their consent but, also against their rights joint owners in the suit schedule property. The appellants further submit that, they were never parties to the earlier suits bearing O.S.No.248/2006 and O.S.No.431/2006 filed at Ramanagara Court, nor were they aware of the Compromise Decree that is claimed to have been passed before the Lok-adalath on 14.09.2011.

5. The respondents, on the other hand, have relied heavily upon those prior proceedings to contend that the matter of ownership of the suit schedule property has already been settled and that the appellants' claim is barred by principles of res judicata and limitation. However, it is the specific stand of the appellants that, they were excluded from those proceedings and were not afforded an opportunity to assert their rights therein; thereby rendering any decree passed therein not binding on them.

6. This court, having heard the arguments and perused records, is of the considered opinion that, the Tri