IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5736 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. ASHWATHANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O HANUMATHARAYAPPA AND SANJEEVAMMA R/AT CHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELEHANAKA, BANGALORE – 562 157

2. SMT. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O ASHWATHANARAYANA, 3. SMT. MAHALAKSHMI C A AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D/O ASHWATHANARAYANA, Digitally W/O SRI RAMESH BABU M R , signed by R/AT NO.454, RAMYA D SHARADHAMMA BUILDING, Location: MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE STREET, HIGH YALAHANKA BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, COURT OF BANGALORE – 560 064 KARNATAKA

4. SMT. C A JYOTHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O ASHWATHANARAYANA, R/AT NO.47, BYNAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE – 562 157

5. SRI SHIVARAJ C A AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O ASHWATHANARAYANA, 6. SMT SHILPA R AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, W/O SHIVARAJ C A, 7. MASTER. ADITHYAVARDHANA AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, S/O SHIVARAJ C A, 8. KUM AADHVIKA ALEKYA AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, D/O SHIVARAJ C A , SL.NO 7 & 8 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN THEIR FATHER NAMELY SRI. SHIVARAJ C A, SL.NO.1,2,5 TO 8 ARE R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELEHANKA, BANGALORE – 562 157 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BRIJESH CHANDER GURU.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AND SANJEEVAMMA, R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 562 157

2. M/S PRIDE INFRA DEVELOPERS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT FLAT NO.S1, 27 PARK AVENUE, 24^TH MAIN, 13^TH CROSS, SECTOR-I, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI. S. NARESH S/O SRI VENUGOPAL REDDY, R/AT NO.1-9, GUNDLA PALLI, KOLAMASANAPALLI, PALAMANERU, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LOKESH R., ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NOs. 1 AND 2 IN OS.NO.440/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 AND 2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellants/defendants calling in question the order dated 02.05.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.I and II filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.440/2025 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Devanahalli¹, thereby, the orders of temporary injunctions are granted in favour of the plaintiff against defendant No.1 restraining him from further construction over the suit schedule item No.1 property and restraining him from alienating and transferring the suit schedule item No.2 in favour of third parties.

3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition claiming half share in the suit schedule properties and also for declaration to declare that the agreement of sale dated 20.12.2024 is not binding upon the plaintiff. There are two items in the schedule, such as suit schedule item No.1 is hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short the house property and suit schedule item No.2 is the land.

5. Upon the applications filed by the plaintiff, the Trial Court observed that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants is admitted. Hence, if the suit schedule properties are alienated, then it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

Therefore, granted the orders of temporary injunctions.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants/d