Temporary injunctions require a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, ensuring parties' rights are preserved during litigation.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC , 1908 by the appellant who was arrayed as 14th defendant in O.S.No.40/2017 before the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The appeal challenges the interlocutory order dated 21.12.2018 passed on I.A.No.1 whereby the trial Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein), restraining the appellant and certain other defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit.

2. The appellant has contended in the memorandum of appeal that, the trial Court's decision is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. The appellant has sought to persuade this Court that, the order of temporary injunction is unsustainable in law and on facts, as the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit schedule property, especially in light of a prior partition in the year 1991 and alienation of suit properties as early as 2002. It is further contended that, the suit is barred by limitation and the claim of the plaintiff is barred by doctrine of resjudicata.

3. These submissions of the counsel for the appellant are refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and he submits that, the learned trial Court has rightly granted the temporary injunction as the plaintiff is also one of the sharer in the properties so described in the schedule appended to the plaint. It is submitted that if, defendants succeeds in alienating the properties, then the very rights of the plaintiff will be affected. It is submitted that, as the schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of the father of the plaintiff, plaintiff has got a share. It is submitted that, except defendant No.14, the other defendants have not preferred any appeal perhaps conceding the rights of the plaintiff. Thus, supporting the findings of the trial Court, it is prayed to dismiss this appeal.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and on perusal of the records including the impugned order, pleadings in the suit, this Court proceeds to consider the legal questions and factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal.

5. The foundational facts of the suit filed by the plaintiff i.e. Bhagyamma - is that, the suit schedule property are the self-acquired properties of her late father Chikkachennappa, who died intestate. She asserts that, she is one of the class-I legal heirs and is thus entitled to a rightful share in the estate left behind by her father. The suit is for partition, possession, declaration and consequential reliefs. The plaintiff also contends that, certain alienations effected by other legal heirs are not binding on her share and accordingly, sought injunctive reliefs pending final adjudication.

6. The learned trial Court, after evaluating the prima facie material and on hearing both the sides, allowed IA.No1 filed Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with 151 CPC , holding that prima facie case was made out by the plaintiff and that the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable injury warranted interim protection.

7. The injunction order restrained specific defendants including the appellant from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property.

8. The principle submission of the appellant is that, the claim of the plaintiff is hit by doctrine of resjudicata as the family had earlier entered into a compromise in O.S.No.556/1991, and the subject matter of the present suit is already settled in that earlier suit. However, the trial Court found and rightly so, that the compromise in the earlie