SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18429

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K S HEMALEKHA
SRI BALAKRISHNA N – Appellant
Versus
SRI D SUNDAR DAS – Respondent
MFA 6505/2025



##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18961 MFA No. 6505 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6505 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI BALAKRISHNA .N S/O LATE K. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

R/AT MOORBAND VILLAGE, ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK,

MYSURU DISTRICT-571114.

2. SRI KIRAN KUMAR .N S/O LATE K. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.83/110,

4TH MAIN, H.V.R. LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560079.

3. SMT. N. BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O M.N. NATARAJ Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M D/O LATE K. NAGARAJU, Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

COURT OF R/AT DOOR NO.3650, KARNATAKA

8TH MAIN, DATTAGALLI 3RD STAGE, KANAKADASANAGARA, MYSURU CITY-570023.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI AJIT P.B., ADVOCATE AND

SRI R.K. THONTADHARYA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI D. SUNDAR DAS S/O LATE DODDAPPA @ DODDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18961 MFA No. 6505 of 2025

HC-KAR

2. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE DASAPPA, D/O. LATE DODDAPPA @ DODDEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, BOTH R-1 AND R-2 ARE R/AT

ANTHARASANTHE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571114.

3. SRI R. RAGHU, S/O LATE J. RANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

R/AT DOOR NO.71, “SRIRANGA”, CHAMUNDI VIHAR LAYOUT, NAZARBAD MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY-570010.

4. SRI B.P. MANJUNATH, S/O LATE PUTTALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

R/AT DOOR NO.438, OPP. GEETHA SCHOOL, SIDDARTHANAGAR,

NAZARBAD MOHALLA, MYSURU-570010.

5. INFINITY DEVELOPERS, B.N. PLAZA, OPP. RAVI CHILDREN HOSPITAL,

GIRIJAMMA SUBBANNAIAH LAYOUT, GANDI CIRCLE, HOSADURGA TOWN, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK,

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTERNS.

SRI B.L. JYOTHISH CHOWDARI, S/O B.N. LAKSHMIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

R/AT BALLALA SAMUDRA, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527.

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18961 MFA No. 6505 of 2025

HC-KAR

SRI GURUMURTHY M.P.

S/O PARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT MADHURE VILLAGE,

HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.D. RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

SRI GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C., ADVOCATE FOR R-2;

SRI A. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;

SRI D. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-5;

NOTICE TO R-3 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.III IN O.S.NO.6/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, H.D. KOTE, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER

39 RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present miscellaneous first appeal is filed calling

in question the order dated 25.07.2025 passed on I.A. No.III in O.S. No.6/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, H.D. Kote, (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking

temporary injunction has been dismissed.

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18961 MFA No. 6505 of 2025

HC-KAR

Brief facts:

2. The appellants/plaintiffs instituted suit in O.S.

No.6/2025 seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and for declaration that the sale deeds and the Joint Development Agreement are not binding on their share. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit properties are the ancestral and joint family properties and they are entitled to 1/3rd share. It is contended that defendant No.1 has mutated his name in the revenue records and has proceeded to alienate portions of the schedule properties and has entered into Joint Development Agreement dated 20.04.2022. Pending suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No.III seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from

alienating the suit schedule properties.

3. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the

pleadings and documents, held that:

a. The plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima

facie case.

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18961 MFA No. 6505 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top