IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2620 OF 2025 (CPC-)

BETWEEN:

SRI H. L. YOGESH S/O LATE T. LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT HALLIKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI H. L. SATISH S/O LATE T. LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

2. SRI H.S. PRANAAM SATHISH Digitally S/O H.L. SATISH signed by AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RAMYA D Location:

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT RAVI HIGH AISWARYANIKETHANA, COURT OF KARNATAKA 2^ND CROSS, TEACHER COLONY, MADDUR TOWN, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.

3. SRI H. L. SUVARNA D/O LATE T. LINGAIAH AND W/O D.SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O SAGYA VILLAGE, HALAGURU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI. P.M. NARAYANASWAMY AND SRI. RAMESH KUMAR V., ADV. FOR RESPONDENTS AND C/R1.)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.07.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.148/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff questioning the order dated 07.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.148/2020 pending on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, whereby the application seeking temporary injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 3 restraining them from alienating suit schedule 'A' and 'E' properties till disposal of the suit.

2. The plaintiff has filed suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule 'A' and 'E' properties by contending that the said suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties.

3. On contrary, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed detailed written statement by contending that only item No.1 to 9 of the suit schedule 'A' properties are joint family properties and remaining properties are self acquired properties.

4. The plaintiff has filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking for temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 3 from alienating suit schedule 'A' and 'E' properties till disposal of the suit.

5. The Trial Court has allowed the application by granting temporary injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 3 restraining them from alienating in respect of item Nos.1 to 9 of the suit schedule 'A' properties and dismissed in respect of item Nos.10 to 25 of the suit schedule 'A' properties and item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit schedule 'E'

properties.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the Trial Court by not granting temporary injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 3 in respect of item Nos.10 to 25 of the suit schedule 'A' properties and item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule 'E' properties, the present appeal is preferred.

7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material on record.

8. The points that arise for consideration by this Court are as follows:

(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff make out prima-facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the Trial court for grant of an order of temporary injunction?

(ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff make out case of balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the Trial court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction?

(iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiff would suffer any irreparable loss or injury?

9. Learned counsel for the appellant su