Transfer of property under the guise of partition is invalid if conducted in violation of a court's interim order, as it does not legally confer rights upon transferees.

JUDGMENT :

Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.

This appeal is filed against the divergent finding in a suit for partition and separate possession.

2. Admitted Genealogy is as under:

3. H.Bhagavanthappa was the propositus. Rathnamma is the wife of the propositus. The couple H.Bhavanthappa and Rathnamma had 7 children namely Vijayalakshimi, Anusuya, Padakshi, Venkatesh, Meenakshi, Lakshmidevi and Shantharaju. It is stated that Anusuya died issueless and she was unmarried.

4. The suit is filed by Lakshmidevi against her father H.Bhagavanthappa-defendant No.1 and brothers Shantharaju and Venkatesh and Sisters, Vijayalakshmi, Padmakshi. Rathnamma the mother of the plaintiff is arrayed as defendant No.6. It is now stated that Meenakshi died in the year 1992.

5. An Application is filed before this Court by Punith who claims to be the son of Meenakshi. That application is still pending consideration as the appellants have filed objection to the said application disputing the status of Punith as son of Meenakshi.

6. Before the Trial Court, the defendants took a stand that the suit is not maintainable as the property at item No.1 is not in existence and property at items No.2 to 6 are the self- acquired properties of defendant No.1 -H.Bhagavanthappa and item No.7 is the self-acquired property of defendant No.3 and item No.8 is the self-acquired property of defendant No.2.

7. On contest, the suit is dismissed. Plaintiff filed an appeal before First Appellate Court. During the pendency of the case before the Trial Court, there was an interim order restraining defendant No.1 from alienating suit schedule properties. Before First Appellate Court three more properties were impleaded as items No.9 to 11.

8. On contest, First Appellate Court held that item No.1 is not in existence and was sold prior to the suit. As far as items No.2 to 8 properties are concerned, First Appellate Court held the properties are self-acquired properties of defendant No.1. Items No.9 to 11 properties are held to be ancestral properties.

9. First Appellate Court also held that the transfer made by defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit in violation of the interim order restraining transfer is invalid. Thus, First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that defendants No.2 and 3 in whose favour the transfer was made did not acquire any exclusive right over the properties. However, noticing the fact that defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the appeal, First Appellate Court held that the succession has opened in favour of the parties to the proceeding and granted 1/6^th share in respect of items No.2 to 8 and granted 7/36^th share in properties at items No.9 to 11 in favour of the plaintiff.

10. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree defendants No.3, 4 and 6 are before this Court. Defendant No.6/appellant No.3 is no more.

11. Defendant No.6 who is appellant No.3- the mother of the plaintiff has died during the pendency of this appeal. She died intestate.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that First Appellate Court erred in