The court upheld the need for a temporary injunction to prevent alienation of property during ongoing litigation, emphasizing protection of legal rights amid ownership disputes.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff and learned counsel for respondent-defendant.

2. With consent of learned counsels for parties, the petitions are taken up for final disposal.

3. These petitions are arising out of the same suit on two different applications.

4. Parties to the petitions shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

5. In WP.No.29182/2025, the plaintiff has questioned the rejection of his application i.e., I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction against the defendant restraining him, his agents, servants, men etc, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has challenged the said order before the first Appellate Court in M.A.No.1/2022. The first Appellate Court dismissed the same and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court.

6. In WP.No.29398/2025, the plaintiff has questioned the rejection of his application i.e., I.A.No.3 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, henchmen or any person claiming through or under him from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of third party or creating charge over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has challenged the said order before the first Appellate Court in M.A.No.11/2024. The first Appellate Court dismissed the same and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court.

7. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court challenging both the orders of rejection by the trial Court.

8. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court are illegal, perverse and the same are not sustainable and require to be interfered by this Court. It is further contended that a suit in O.S.No.96/2021 came to be filed by the plaintiff for relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Along with the suit, two applications came to be filed; one for restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and another not to alienate the suit schedule property or create charge over the suit schedule property.

9. It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the suit schedule property along with other properties, were partitioned between the plaintiff and his brother, namely Sri Bhyrappa and the name of the plaintiff is forthcoming in the revenue records. Subsequent to the partition, Sri Bhyrappa is alleged to have executed a Sale Deed in favour of the respondent-defendant, by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 20.04.2021.

10. It is further contended that the plaintiff's brother Bhyrappa died on 21.04.2021. He was unmarried and died intestate. During his lifetime, he was suffering from asthma, he was addicted to alcohol and smoking. Taking undue advantage of the weakness of the deceased Bhyrappa, the defendant developed intimacy with an intention to knock off the suit schedule property. Therefore, considering the medical condition of the deceased Bhyrappa, the defendant got executed a General Power of Attorney and the registered Sale Agreement to sell the suit schedule property in his favour.

11. It is also contended that on 20.03.2021, the defendant colluding with the witnesses, had taken the deceas