IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6345 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. RADHA K W/O HALESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O YARECHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE-577217.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. PUSHPAMMA @ KUSUMA Digitally W/O KARIYAPPA KOLLI signed by AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RAMYA D R/O NELAHONNE VILLAGE Location:

HONNALI TALUK HIGH DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217.

COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. SMT. KAVITHA K W/O THIPPESWAMI H AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O BADA VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577217.

3. SHRI. JAGADEESHAPPA S/O BHARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O NELAHONNE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(r) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2025 PASSED ON IA.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.285/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR, SITTING AT HONNALI, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.1 FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihar, sitting at Honnali, in O.S.No.285/2025 on I.A.No.I, thereby, application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff for temporary injunction is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession by stating that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. Therefore, filed the suit for partition.

3. The application filed for temporary injunction is rejected on the reason that there are other legal heirs but they were not made parties, hence the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Another reason assigned is that defendant No.1 had acquired property in the partition in her father's family and therefore, it is absolute property of defendant No.1 and the properties are not joint family properties or ancestral properties. On these reasons the application came to be dismissed.

4. In the suit for partition the prima facie case to be made out is regarding nature of property, whether the ancestral properties/coparcenery or the joint family properties. It is the contention of defendants that suit properties are neither ancestral/coparcenery property nor joint family properties. Defendant No.1 had acquired the properties in the partition held in her father's family, therefore, the defendant No.1 acquired properties not from her husband or her father-in-law, but acquired through her father's properties, which is culminating in FDP No.1/2018.

5. When this being the fact, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 presses the service of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. When prima facie it is made out by the counsel for the respondent No.1 that defendant No.1 in FDP No.1/2018 acquired property as her share in the partition through her father. Therefore, prima facie the nature of properties is not coparcenery/ancestral and other property.

6. There is force found in the submission made by the counsel for the respondent No.1. When this being the fact, the nature of property is in dispute. Therefore, the trial court is justified in dismissing the application. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed Whatever observation made above shall not influence while deciding the case on merits.

SD/-

(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52