Civil Court jurisdiction is barred in land acquisition matters, yet it can impose conditions safeguarding parties' interests during disputes over property title.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

These two appeals arise out of a single order dated 28^th January 2025 passed by the Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala in OS No.460/2022. The said order was rendered in connection with interlocutory application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of defendant No.42 seeking vacation of a prior injunction order dated 29.6.2024. The trial Court upon due consideration, allowed the said application thereby, vacating the earlier interim order which has restrained the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (`KIADB' for short) from releasing compensation pursuant to the acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.44 of Mavinakunte Village, Nelamangala Tq. while simultaneously directing defendant No.42 to furnish a bank guarantee for the compensation amount as a condition for receiving the same.

2. Aggrieved by the vacation of the injunction, the plaintiffs have preferred MFA 969/25. Conversely, defendant No.42 has filed MFA No.3171/2025, impugning the imposition of the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee.

3. The factual substratum out of which, these proceedings arise, may now be delineated as under: The suit property in question is a land bearing Sy.No.44, situated at Mavinakunte Village in Nelamangala Tq. measuring approximately 9 acres 4 guntas which comprises 8.28 acres of cultivable land and 16 guntas of Kharab land. It is not in dispute that, the said property was acquired originally by one P.Ramanna S/o.Sanjeevappa, under a registered sale deed back to the year 1951. The said Ramanna is reported to have died intestate and was survived by seven children. The present plaintiffs and defendant no's.1 to 40 in the suit are the natural heirs and descendants of Ramanna.

4. The plaintiff's suit being one for partition and declaration is founded on the assertion that, the suit schedule property constitutes joint family property that has remained undivided. They contend that, by virtue of their status as co-parceners, they are each entitled to a one seventh (1/7^th) share in the suit schedule property. Their grievance arises out of certain transactions which allegedly alienate the joint property without their consent. Specifically, they challenge a sale transaction effected in favour of defendant No.42 Smt.Gayathri K., on 11^th September 2023. The plaintiffs dispute the legality and validity of the sale deed on multiple grounds including that, the property was purchased pendent elite during the subsistence partition suit and that the title of the vendor itself is under a cloud owing to a contested Will.

5. On the other hand, particularly defendant nos. 18 to 20 have taken up a contention that, the property was not available for partition as it was subject matter of testamentary disposition. According to them, late P.Ramanna had executed a Will dated 26^th May 1982 under which the property was bequeathed to their mother Smt.Savitramma. Based on this will they had secured a probate in P & SC No.3/2023. They contend that, the sale in favour of defendant no.42 was made after the grant of probate is accordingly valid and lawful. The purchaser, defendant no.42, has based her claim on this probate and the consequent sale deed, asserting that she is a bona fide purchaser for value.

6. Having heard the arguments of both the side and on perusal of material placed on record, it shows that, there was acquisition of the said property by KIADB commenced under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short `2013 Act') and compensation proceedings were initiated. Plaintiffs moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to injunct KIADB from disbursing compensation to defendant No.42. They contended that their rights as co-owners in an undivided property were being usurped and that irreparable injury would be caused if compensation were paid to a person whose title was in dispute. The records reveal that, the trial Court had initi