The court affirmed the plaintiff's right to a share in ancestral property and granted an injunction against unauthorized construction, emphasizing the need to protect her interests during ongoing litigation.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4, 5, 10, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27 and 30 to 32, learned Senior counsel for caveator-respondent No.34 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.13 and 15 to 17.

2. This matter was heard in part earlier and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court ordered to appoint a Court Commissioner to identify the property and the Commissioner has now filed a report before this Court and the same is available on record.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the appellant/plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S.No.1295/2022 is that the plaintiff while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in all the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds also sought the relief to declare that Joint Development Agreement dated 06.12.2021 is not binding on the plaintiff share and also declare that the Joint Development Agreement dated 06.12.2021 which is morefully described in prayer column No.19 ‘b’ and ‘c’ are not binding on the plaintiff and direct determination of mesne profits in respect of the suit schedule properties and also south for a temporary injunction restraining the Joint Development Agreement holder i.e., defendant No.34 from proceeding with construction in pursuance of the agreement dated 06.12.2021.

4. In both the plaint as well as in the application, it is contended that plaintiff and one late Motamma are daughters of late Munikadarappa. The defendant No.4-Kuppaswamy and late Ramu defendant No.18, defendant Nos.25 and 29 are sons of late Munikadarappa. The defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and defendant No.19 are children of late Motamma and grand- children of late Munikadarappa. The defendant No.5 is the wife of defendant No.4, defendant Nos.6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 are the children of defendant No.4. The defendant Nos.8, 9 and 11 are the grand-children of defendant No.4, the defendant No.13 is wife of late M. Ramu and defendant Nos.14, 15, 16 and 17 are children of late Ramu. The defendant No.19 is the wife of defendant No.18 and defendant Nos.20, 23 and 24 are daughters of defendant No.18 and defendant No.21 and 22 are grand-children of defendant No.18. The defendant No.26 is the wife of defendant No.25. The defendant Nos.27 and 29 are the children of defendant No.25. The defendant No.28 is the grand-children of defendant No.25. The defendant Nos.31, 32 and 33 are the children of defendant No.30.

5. It is contended that late Munikadarappa was the owner in possession of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.24 of Kadirenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Out of the said 2 acres of land in Sy.No.24 of Kadirenahallli Village, the defendant Nos.25 to 33 have entered into a joint venture to develop land i.e., all that piece and parcel of immovable property in Sy.No.24, Khata No.71, measuring 10,004 sq.feet of converted land vide conversion order bearing No.B.DIS.ALNSR(S)10/91-92 in PID No.55-728-60 Padmanabhanagar, New Municipal No.60 situated at Kadirenahalli Village, Kumaraswamy Layout, adjacent to Revenue Layout Kadirenahalli, BBMP Ward No.55, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore now comes under the jurisdiction of BBMP, measuring East to West:262 sq.ft. and North to South: 42 sq.ft. morefully described in item No.2 and shall hereinafter be referred to as item No.2 of the suit schedule. It is also contended that defendant Nos.4 to 24 have entered into a joint venture to develop 19,184 sq.ft. which is morefully described in schedule item No.3 of the suit schedule of converted land with the builder by name A.N. Builders i.e., defendant No.34, behi