1. Suit for partition and declaration — Challenge to compromise decrees — Interim injunction against alienation of property. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 664
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Lalitha Kanneganti, J.
Gangappa, Since Dead By Lrs - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Venkatamma, W/O Venkatanarasappa - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 30678 of 2024 (GM-CPC), Writ Petition No. 30243 of 2024 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 16-07-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Vigneswara S Shastri, Senior Counsel For Sri.Chokkareddy., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri.K.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate
For the Petitioner:Sri. Vigneswara S Shastri, Senior Counsel For Sri.Chokkareddy., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri.K.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate
No presumption exists that a property is joint family property solely because a joint family exists; the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Furthermore, significant delay in seeking injunction while third-party rights accrue negates the elements of balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Additional evidence and interim injunction - Concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the nature of property - Appellate court should not substitute its own discretion unless the lower court's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or perverse (Paras 19, 29) - No presumption that a property is joint family property merely by the existence of a joint Hindu family; the party asserting such status must prove it (Para 20).
(B) Interim Injunction - Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss - Injunction cannot be granted if the party seeking it fails to prove a prima facie case (Para 21) - Long-term silence of a party while third-party rights are created and properties are alienated suggests a lack of balance of convenience and irreparable loss (Paras 26, 28).
(C) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of interference in discretionary orders - High Court shall not interfere with the judicial discretion of lower courts unless the exercise of such discretion is perverse (Para 29).
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs sought partition and declaration that certain compromise decrees were fraudulent, claiming the suit properties were ancestral joint family properties. Defendants contended the properties were self-acquired. The Trial and Appellate courts dismissed applications for interim injunctions against alienation and modification of property, observing a lack of prima facie case and noting that third-party rights had been created since 2011.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish balance of convenience or irreparable loss, as they remained silent for several years while the properties were sold and developed into a layout. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were held to be reasonable and not perverse.
Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts refusing interim injunctions and whether the properties could be considered joint family property based on proceedings under an inam abolition act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that there is no inherent presumption of a property being joint family property solely based on the existence of a joint family; the onus of proof lies with the claimant. Additionally, significant delay in challenging alienations precludes the grant of an interim injunction as balance of convenience and irreparable loss are not established. Under Article 227, the High Court will not interfere with discretionary orders unless they are perverse.
Result: WP.No.30678/2024 and WP.No.30243/2024 are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
civil procedure
- interim orders
- appeals
- evidence
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs argued property was joint family; defendants contended it was self-acquired. Both courts refused interim injunction. (Para 11 , 12 , 16 , 17 )
3. Plaintiffs failed to prove prima facie case of joint family property; delay and third-party rights weighed against injunction. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
4. No presumption of joint family property; burden on party asserting it. Interim injunction requires strong prima facie case. (Para 20 , 21 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed; interim order vacated; observations not on merits. (Para 29 )
6. What are the parameters for granting an interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC?
The party must prove a prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favour, and irreparable loss if injunction is refused. (Para 21 )
7. Is there a presumption that property held by a Hindu joint family is joint family property?
No. There is no presumption that property is joint family property merely due to existence of a joint Hindu family; the one asserting must prove it. (Para 20 , 24 )
8. What is the scope of appellate interference with a trial court's discretionary order on interim injunction?
An appellate court will not interfere unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or settled legal principles were ignored. (Para 19 , 29 )
9. Can documents filed belatedly under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC be allowed in appeal if no proper explanation is given?
No. If the party was aware of the documents and could have produced them earlier without proper explanation, the court may reject such application. (Para 9 , 24 )
10. Does the court conduct a mini-trial when deciding an application for interim injunction?
No. The court only makes prima facie observations for the limited purpose of determining the dispute and does not give final findings on the nature of property. (Para 24 )
ORDER :
Lalitha Kanneganti, J.
These two writ petitions arise out of orders passed in MA No.71/2022 and MA No.70/2022 dated 13.08.2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, whereby the Appellate Court has confirmed the orders that were passed in OS No.172/2020 on IA No.3 dated 02.09.2022 and IA No.1 dated 16.09.2022. Hence, this Court is disposing of the writ petitions by way of a common order.
2. The petitioners before this Court are the plaintiffs in the suit. They have filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/2 (half) share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and to declaration that the compromise decree in OS. No. 384/2011 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, and the compromise decree in OS. No. 191/2012, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, is fraudulent, collusive, and not binding on the plaintiffs.
3. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court that the grandfather of the plaintiffs by name Moodalaiah had two sons by name Venkatappa and Thimmaiah. The plaintiffs' father-Gangappa is the son of Venkatappa. Thimmaiah had five sons and three daughters. Defendant No.1 is the wife of Venkatanarasappa - the first son of Thimmaiah. Defendants Nos.3 and 4 are the children of another daughter- Kadamma and defendant Nos.5 to 10 are the legal heirs of Govindappa i.e. one of the son of Thimmaiah, defendant Nos.13 to 16 are the legal heirs of Ramaiah i.e. another son of Thimmaiah. Defendant Nos.11, 12 and 17 are children of Thimmaiah. It is stated that defendants No. 18 to 21 are the subsequent purchasers but not the family members.
4. It is the plaintiffs' case that the grandfather, Moodalaiah, had acquired the suit properties by way of inheritance, succession and self-acquisition. His name was entered into the index of the land record of rights and in the RTC extracts. After the death of Moodalaiah, Venkatappa and Thimmaiah are the only legal heirs who have succeeded to the suit schedule property by way of inheritance/succession. Moodalaiah has not executed any mode of registered or unregistered instruments in favour of any of his sons. He died leaving behind the properties to his sons and the sons have acquired the right and title to the property and they have been cultivating the properties personally without any partition and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property.
5. It is the case that after the death of Moodalaiah, the revenue entries were transferred in the name of Thimmaiah with consent of Venkatappa by reason that Thimmaiah had knowledge regarding the payment of revenue and maintaining the revenue records in respect of the properties. It is stated that after the death of Thimmaiah, all the properties were transferred in the names of his wife and children without the knowledge of the plaintiff. One property has been transferred by mutation in favour of the plaintiff, bearing Survey No. 7, measuring 30 guntas. However, the plaintiff has no knowledge about the mutation proceedings and states that the compromise decree was obtained collusively by the members of the family. It is the case that the properties are the Hindu undivided joint family properties, and as such, they are entitled to a share in the said properties.
6. In the said suit, two applications were filed. IA No.1 is filed not to alienate the property and IA No.3 is filed not to change the physical features of the property. That came to be dismissed by the trial Court by orders dated 16.09.2022 and 02.09.2022 respectively, wherein the Court has observed that there is no dispute with respect to relationship between the parties and it cannot be inferred that they are the members of the joint family and for that reason at this stage, it cannot be decided that the suit scheduled properties are the joint family properties or self-acquired properties of
