The court upheld the trial court's rejection of interim applications while allowing one to prevent property alienation, emphasizing the need for a full trial to resolve ownership disputes.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

Heard learned counsel for appellant and also learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2. These two appeals are filed against the rejection of I.A.Nos.I and II filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 C.P.C, wherein prayed to restrain the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also not alienate the property till the disposal of the suit and trial Court rejected both the applications and hence these two appeals are filed.

3. The main case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the property belongs to the joint family and it is an ancestral property and there was a partition in the year 1961 i.e., 21.09.1961 and the suit schedule property was fallen to the share of plaintiff and no extent is mentioned but in allotment of share particularly in favour of this petitioner Sy.No.117 is specifically mentioned. It is also stated in the partition deed with regard to the tenancy claim made by the others and learned counsel contend that subsequent to partition, tenancy claim was considered and property No.117 was returned to the family, but the same was mutated in the name of Alamelamma, wife of Puttanna, who is the propositor of the family and subsequently K.G.Prabhakar, father of respondents and brother of plaintiff got the property in his favour and got the sale deed. Subsequently when K.G.Prabhakar passed away his wife executed the documents in favour of defendant No.1. The same is challenged before the trial Court by filing a suit seeking relief of declaration and also contend that plaintiff is in possession of the property and also contend that if any property is further sold, it would create multiple proceedings and sought for interim order praying to protect the possession of the property as well as restraining the defendant from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the property and also restraining the defendant from alienating the property during the pendency of the suit.

4. The defendant appeared and filed objections to those I.As, contending that the defendant is the absolute owner in possession of the property by virtue of sale deed dated 05.05.2007 executed by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 contend that the mother of defendant Nos.2 and 3 executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 and K.G.Prabhakar is the absolute owner and peaceful possession of suit schedule property and after his death his wife Sudha executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. The assertion of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was fallen to the share in family partition is denied and contend that plaintiff has no right, title, interest over the property, but trying to interfere with the possession and defendant was not made party in the proceedings before Assistant Commissioner and plaintiff also not made out any prima facie case and hence prayed the Court to reject the application.

5. The trial Court having considered the pleadings of both the parties and also taken note of the submission made by the plaintiff that the property fallen to the share of plaintiff in terms of partition deed dated 21.09.1961 and also the contention of the defendant that the trial Court taken note of the fact that plaintiff is the son of Puttanna and Alamelamma. Father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 by name K.G.Prabhakar is one of the brother of the plaintiff and he is no more. The mother of defendant Nos.2 and 3 by name Sudha, who is vendor of the suit schedule property executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1.

6. The trial Court having considered the relationship between the parties as well