Joint family properties must be protected in partition suits, ensuring the rights of co-sharers against potential losses during ongoing legal disputes.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

The appeal is filed by the appellants/defendant Nos.5 and 19 questioning the order dated 17.09.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.4625/2025 on the file of XXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-6), thereby, by allowing I.A.No.1 restrained defendant Nos.1 to 27, their friends, agents, representatives, legal heirs, executors, administrators or anybody claiming through them from alienating or encumbering or creating third party rights in respect of schedule A, B and C properties and I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and praying to grant 1/4^th share and also for declaration to declare that the registered Joint Development Agreement dated 08.08.2013 is null and void and not binding on the shares of plaintiff No.1 and also prays to declare the registered partition deed dated 11.07.2018 and for rendition of accounts and for permanent injunction.

3. The appellants filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 for an order of temporary injunction. I.A.No.1 is allowed and I.A.No.2 is dismissed. The trial Court assigned the reasons that the suit is filed for partition and to protect the interest of the co-sharers and also the defendants have put up construction and are selling portion of the property and creating third party rights. Therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, hence, granted an order of temporary injunction against the defendants from making further alienation as the plaintiffs made out prima facie case and balance of convenience.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.5 and 19 submitted that the suit filed itself is an abuse of process of Court for the reason that defendant No.25 has already filed the suit in O.S.No.2085/2021 for seeking the similar reliefs as prayed in the present suit and in that suit the plaintiffs were defendant Nos.25 and 27 and in that suit, defendant Nos.25 and 27 have filed the application under Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 of CPC to transpose themselves as plaintiffs, but later on, the said suit was withdrawn. Since the plaintiffs in the said suit and defendant Nos.25 and 27 have not got the relief of an order of temporary injunction, therefore, after withdrawing the said suit filed the present suit by the plaintiffs. Hence, submitted that it is amounting to an abuse of process of Court. Though, the instant suit filed by defendant Nos.25 and 27 in O.S.No.2085/2021, but the plaintiffs in the said suit and defendant Nos.25 and 27 are having similar and common interests and therefore, when in the earlier suit they failed to get an order of temporary injunction and once again filing of the instant suit for the similar relief is nothing, but an abuse of process of Court.

5. Further submitted that the present appeal is confined to only item No.8 and 9 of ‘A’ schedule properties and these properties are exclusive properties of M.Krishnappa and M.Channaraya Reddy who are fathers of defendant Nos.1 to 13 and defendant Nos.14 to 24 respectively. Further submitted that there is Joint Development Agreement on 08.08.2013 and defendant No.25 has filed the suit in O.S.No.2085/2021 in the year 2021 and that the instant suit is filed in the year 2025. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Thus, it is not maintainable.

6. Further submitted that in the said Joint Development Agreement dated 08.08.2013 the plaintiffs herein being the confirming parties have stated in the said Joint Develop