Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 13635
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J
NAGARATHNAMMA W/O VENKARAMAYYA H D/O MUNINAGAPPA – Appellant
Versus
MUNINAGAPPA S/O LATE SONNAPPA – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4239 OF 2025 (CPC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. AMBAJI RAO NAJRE
For the Respondents: Sri. MARIAPPA M.S
The court emphasized the need to protect a party's rights in a partition suit against potential alienation by co-defendants.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Provisions regarding partition and separate possession of property - Appellant sought an injunction against respondents to prevent alienation of property pending suit for partition - Temporary injunction was necessary to protect rights of the plaintiff. (Paras 9, 10)
(B) Appeal - Nature of relief sought in partition suits - The appellant stressed the need for protecting her share against potential fraudulent alienation by respondents. (Paras 3, 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed her 1/3rd share in suit schedule properties, alleging potential fraudulent transactions by co-defendants. The suit was filed for partition, and there was fear of alienation before trial.
Findings of Court:
The court recognized the entitlement of the plaintiff to her claimed share and acknowledged the risk of alienation by co-defendants.
Issues: The main issues were centered on the right to partition and the risk of alienation affecting the plaintiff's claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the plaintiff's rights proper under the Hindu Succession Act should be protected during the litigation phase to prevent inequitable situations.
Result: Appeal disposed with direction to protect rights through injunction.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's request for protective measures against property alienation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's findings affirm need for trial to resolve property rights. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. court underlines the necessity to preserve the plaintiff's property rights during litigation. (Para 8) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.7 at length.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 05.06.2025 passed in O.S.No.1088/2024 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Devanahalli, wherein the interim application filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking an ad-interim order of temporary injunction by restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 6 or anybody claiming through them from alienating or creating any third party interest in respect of suit schedule property, till the disposal of the suit.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that, the suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the schedule properties. According to her, plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 6 constitute a joint Hindu undivided family. She and defendant Nos. 1 to 6 continued to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. According to her, the father of the plaintiff by name Muninagappa acquired the right title and possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Partition Deed dated 06.09.1971. It is stated that, recently plaintiff came to know about the intention of the defendant Nos.3 to 5 to sell the suit schedule property to defraud the plaintiff. Even Item No. 1 of the schedule property is sold to defendant No. 7. Plaintiff is not a party of the said Sale Deed. It is stated that, in the second week of September 2024, plaintiff received information through villagers about the fraudulent transaction. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that, if defendant Nos. 1 to 6 further alienates Item Nos. 2 and 3 schedule properties, she will deprive of her legitimate share in the schedule properties.
4. Before that Trial Court defendant Nos. 1 to 6 did not appear and therefore they were placed ex-parte.
5. Defendant No. 7 alone appeared and resisted the interim application denying the entire assertions made in the application. It is contented that, defendant No. 7 purchased item No. 1 schedule property under registered Sale Deed dated 28.05.2001. As per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , the said alienation was much prior to 20.12.2004. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim the right in a property in question which is purchased by defendant No. 7. There is no cause of action.
6. The learned Trial Court framed relevant points for consideration and answered them partly in the affirmative and ultimately the application came to be rejected against defendant No.7 in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. This is how now the appellant/plaintiff is before this Court.
7. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, it is noticed that, plaintiff has filed suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in all the schedule properties by metes and bounds. She has prayed to effect a partition and allot her 1/3rd share in the schedule property. So also has prayed that the Sale Deed dated 28.05.2001 executed in favour of the defendant No.7 is not binding on plaintiff share. Evidently as observed by the Trial Court, the said property was sold much prior to 20.12.2004 i.e., the period prescribed under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . It is the grievance of the plaintiff that, if defendant Nos. 1 to 6 sells other properties also, she will be deprived of her 1/3rd share in the same. Evidently defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are placed ex-parte before the Trial Court. In this appeal also the notice is dispensed against them. It is the apprehension of the plaintiff that, if defendant No. 7 again sells the property, there will be multiplicity of proceeding
