IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5456 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT BELAGAVADI, MADBAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120.

2. SMT. ANJANAMMA W/O LATE YALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT BELAGAVADI, MADBAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120.

3. SRI NAGAIAH W/O LATE GUDDAIAH @ GUDDABOVI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M R/AT BELAGAVADI, Location: HIGH MADBAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, COURT OF RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120.

KARNATAKA …APPELLANTS (BY SRI VIKAS NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. YALLAMMA W/O LATE GANGAIAH D/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT VENKATAIAHNAPALYA HAMLET OF BYRAPURA VILLAGE, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT PIN CODE-562027.

2. SRI GOVINDAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT VENKATAIAHNAPALYA, HAMLET OF BYRAPURA VILLAGE, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, PIN CODE-562027.

3. SMT. LAKKAMMA W/O LATE LAKSHMANAMURTHY, D/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT LAKSHMANPURA HAMLET OF KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE-562132.

4. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT VENKATAIAHNAPALYA, HAMLET OF BYRAPURA VILLAGE, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562027.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VASUNDARA T.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.M. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)

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.

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

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

6. 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 part