A blanket injunction is improper in partition suits when ownership rights are undetermined, allowing construction at one's own risk based on future adjudication.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) 1. This appeal is filed by the defendant No.6 under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 104 of Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) challenging the order dated 14.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.IV filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in O.S.No.77/2022 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’). By the said order, the Trial Court allowed the application and restrained the appellant/defendant No.6 from constructing or installing a petrol bunk in the suit schedule property bearing R.S.

No.109/6, until disposal of the suit.

2. The appellant/defendant No.6 is a purchaser of one acre of land in R.S.No.109/6 of suit scheduled property from defendant No.4, under a registered sale deed.

3. The appellant submitted that the original suit is filed for partition and in the event the suit is decreed, defendant No.4 would be entitled to a share in the suit schedule property. The appellant, having purchased a portion of the property from Defendant No.4, who claims to be in lawful possession of the said extent.

4. It is further submitted that defendant No.6 is in the process of constructing a petrol bunk in the portion measuring one acre, which she has purchased. The appellant contends that if defendant No.4 is entitled to a share in the property, then she, as a purchaser from defendant No.4, is also entitled to develop the same, subject to the final outcome of the suit.

5. The appellant further submits that granting an order of temporary injunction, thereby restraining defendant No.6 from proceeding with construction, is not justified, particularly when the extent of defendant No.4’s share is yet to be adjudicated and identified by metes and bounds.

6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that defendant No.6 is willing to proceed with the construction of the petrol bunk at her own risk and cost and undertakes not to claim any equity or special rights in future, in the event the suit is decreed against her vendor (defendant No.4).

7. In view of the above, and considering the nature of the suit as one for partition, this Court is of the opinion that the indiscriminate order of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court restraining construction over the entire suit property is not proper or sustainable, particularly when defendant No.6 is ready to proceed without claiming equity and agrees to abide by the outcome of the suit.

8. The plaintiff will get share as per law along with defendant No.4. Then, when the defendant No.4 will get one share and defendant No.6 purchased property from defendant No.4, then defendant No.6 right through defendant No.4. Hence, granting an injunction over the entire suit land is not proper.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.03.2025 passed in I.A. No.IV in O.S.

No.77/2022 is hereby set aside.

10. However, it is made clear that if defendant No.6 proceed with the construction of the petrol bunk, the same shall be strictly at her own risk, and she shall not claim any equity or seek protection in respect of such construction in future. She shall also be bound by the final decree passed in the pending suit.

11. With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of.

12. In light of dismissal of the appeal, pending applications, if any, shall automatically stands disposed off.

Order accordingly.

Sd/-

(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

JUDGE RHR/- CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 58 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [SMT SUJATA W/O MRUTYUNJAYA SARANGHMATH VS. SMT MAHADEVAKKA W/O KUMARASWAMY CHOUKHIMATH ALIAS JALIHAL AND OTHERS]

25.07.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING