This appeal is filed challenging the order dated

30.03.2023 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.239/2022 on the

file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Davanagere.

2.

This appeal is listed for admission. Heard the

learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

3.

The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court

that they have filed the suit for the relief of 1/6^th share

each in the suit schedule property. It is contended that

Kunduwada Danappa married one Muddamma and in the

said wedlock, they had three sons namely Kallappa,

Rudrappa and Hanumanthappa and two daughters namely

Annapurnamma and Adivemma. The said Danappa had

some ancestral properties. After the death of said

- 4 -

Danappa, his children got divided the properties and in the

partition, Hanumanthappa i.e., third son of Danappa had

been derived with a title over the land measuring 1 acre

15 guntas in Sy.No.45/2Cp, situated at Kunduwada

village, Davanagere. The said land is now given with new

number as Sy.No.45/9. The said Hanumanthappa married

two wives namely Rathnamma and Shobha i.e., defendant

Nos.1 and 2 and plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 are the daughters of

said Hanumanthappa and his wives. It is contended that

the father of the plaintiffs was not so worldly-wise and he

was addicted to bad vices as a result, he was suffering

from ill-health. Consequently, in the year 2018, said

Hanumantappa died intestate leaving behind his two wives

and the plaintiffs as his Class-I legal heirs. The plaintiffs

submitted that after they got married, they could not

concentrate on the suit schedule property and about 3 to 4

months ago, they came to know that defendant Nos.3 and

4 have got mutated the katha in respect of suit schedule

property in their names by concocting the documents and

they are making hectic efforts to get the suit schedule

- 5 -

property alienated and to change its nature in order to

defeat the right of the plaintiffs. Hence, they filed the suit.

4.

In pursuance to the suit summons, defendant

No.3 appeared and filed the written statement and

defendant No.4 adopted the said written statement

wherein it is contended that the suit schedule property

was purchased in the year 1998 and got the khatha of the

property mutated in their names as per M.R.No.123/1998-

99 and they are in exclusive possession of the property. It

is also contended that the plaintiffs have come before this

Court after the lapse of 24 years of sale and also

contended that the suit schedule property is converted and

formed the layout and defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are the

co-executant of the registered sale deed are also aware of

the sale and now they cannot contended that recently they

came to know about the same and also contended that

they got converted the property vide order dated

03.09.2018

passed

by

the

Deputy

Commissioner,

Davanagere.

- 6 -

5.

The Trial Court having considered the pleadings

of the parties, discussed that the property was already

sold in the year 1998 itself and the revenue records are

also changed in the name of the purchasers and

subsequently the property also converted by obtaining the

order of Deputy Commissioner hence, comes to the

conclusion that the plaintiffs have not made out any

grounds to grant an order of temporary injunction

restraining defendant Nos.3 and 4 from alienating the suit

schedule property.

6.

The

learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

appellants would vehemently contends that when the sale

was made in the year 1998, they are minors hence, the

same is not within the knowledge of the appellants and

they are having right in the suit schedule property and the

father was not having any exclusive right to sell the

property thus the defendant Nos.3 and 4 may be

restrained from alienating the suit schedule property

- 7 -

otherwise

the

same

would

cause

multiplicity

of

proceedings.

7.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellants and also on perusal of the reason assigned by

the Trial Court wherein the Trial Court taken note th