The court clarified ownership claims must be substantiated with evidence, correcting the trial court's erroneous statement regarding joint ownership of property.

JUDGMENT :

G Basavaraja, J.

Both these appeals arise out of Order dated 20^th March 2025, passed on IA No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in Original Suit No.6670 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-35) at Bengaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this case are that respondent-Smt. Vedavathi, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of house property bearing number 175/A of extended Banashankari 6th Phase (Vrushabhavatinagar), 4^th ‘H’ Block, formed by Bangalore Development Authority ad- measuring East to West 9 meters and North to South 6 meters with the House comprising Ground, First & Second floors and bounded by:

4. Along with the plaint, plaintiff filed application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to restrain the defendant, her men, agents, or anyone claiming through or under her from alienating the suit schedule property. In support of the application, plaintiff has sworn to affidavit in which she has stated that after the death of her husband-V Chidanandachari, she continued to reside in the schedule property and is in possession and enjoyment of the same being the sole legal heir and successor of late V. Chidanandachari. She has also produced the documents such as Aadhar card, voter's card, gas connection receipt, and photographs of the schedule property for having been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

5. When things stood thus, the defendant by colluding with her other sons, started to harass the plaintiff, and her sons came near the house and asked to leave the house. Colluding with her brother-in-laws, Defendant is illegally trying to sell the house property by without the plaintiff's knowledge and also trying to encumber the suit schedule property by forging the signatures of the plaintiff. It is stated that in the event, if the defendant alienates or encumbers and if the plaintiff is dispossessed from the suit schedule property or sell the same, there would be multiplicity of proceedings and on all these grounds it was sought to allow the application.

6. The defendant has filed memo adopting her written statement as objection to the said Interlocutory Application. In her written statement, defendant has stated that the suit schedule property belongs to the defendant as sole and absolute owner of the same, and as such, the plaintiff had no legal right whatsoever, as the plaintiff is neither a family member nor has anything to do with the defendant. It is contended that the defendant is no more the owner of the property and has gifted the same in favour of her two sons, and the plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of Late V Chidanandachari. The plaintiff has not made out any ground to allow the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the application.

7. On hearing the arguments, the trial Court has allowed the Application IA No.2 and granted the temporary injunction as sought for. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant/appellant-Sakamma, has preferred these appeals.

Submissions on behalf