THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.II/2025 AND IV/2025 IN O.S.NO.15/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, ALLOWING IA NO.2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, REJECTING I.A.NO.4 FILED U/O.39 RULE 4 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by defendants Nos.1 to 3, calling in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 21.04.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.2 and 4 in O.S.No.15/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Magadi (‘trial Court’ for short), whereby the trial Court allowed I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties during the pendency of the suit and rejected I.A.No.4 filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC seeking vacation of ex parte injunction.

The respondents/plaintiffs instituted O.S.No.15/2025 seeking declaration, partition and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties.

It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties and the plaintiffs along with defendant Nos.4 to 51 are entitled to shares therein. Alleging that defendant Nos.1 to 3 are attempting to alienate the suit schedule properties on the strength of revenue entries, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.2 seeking temporary injunction restraining alienation of the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit.

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the trial Court and filed I.A.No.4 under Order 39 Rule 4 seeking vacation of the ex parte order of injunction, contending that the suit schedule properties had already been divided under a family arrangement/settlement dated 17.05.1975 and are in possession pursuant to the earlier proceedings including O.S.No.144/2019, which ended in a compromise decree.

After hearing both sides, the trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs and the rejected application filed by the defendants.

Learned counsel for the appellants contend that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective. It is contended that the properties were already partitioned through a family settlement deed, which is evidence by settlement deed dated 17.05.1975 and that the appellants are successors of late Guruvaiah, who had obtained a share in the said arrangement.

It is contended that the appellants had earlier instituted O.S.No.144/2019 for partition, which culminated in a decree dated 19.11.2021, pursuant thereto the revenue entries have been mutated in their name. It is submitted that the trial Court ought not to have granted an order of injunction against the appellants and it is contended that the respondents have suppressed material facts and instituted the present suit only to harass the appellants.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs supports the impugned order and submits the trial Court upon consideration of the material on record, it is rightly held that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. It is submitted that the question regarding the relationship of the parties and succession to share of Guruvaiah is a matter that requires adjudication in a suit and cannot be conclusively determined at an interlocutory stage. It is submitted that if the defendants are permitted to alienate the properties during pendency of the suit, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and irreparable hardship to the plaintiffs.

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the t