IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4366 OF 2021 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI RAMAIAH @ K RAMAIAH S/O LATE SRI KADARAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT MALLASANDRA VILLAGE SONDEKOPPA POST DASANAPURA HOBLI 562 130 BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NANJUNDARADHYA B.G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M 2. SRI MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY COURT OF AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, KARNATAKA

3. SRI HEMANTHKUMAR S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 4. SMT. DIVYA S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT NAGAROOR COLONY DASANPUR HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 162. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GUNJAL BASAPPA MAHALINGAPPA, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 104 R/W ORDER 43 RULE

1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.488/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA, ALLOWING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 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

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the defendant calling in question the Order dated 02.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.488/2016 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge Nelamangala (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with 151 of CPC came to be allowed, restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

Brief facts:

2. The respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit in O.S.No.488/2016 seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property, contending that the property is the ancestral property and joint family property of late Narasimhamurthy and defendant. It is the case that the plaintiffs are the wife and children of late Narasimhamurthy and that there has been no partition of the joint family properties. It is further contended that the defendant, taking advantage of the situation, got the revenue entries mutated in his name and is attempting to alienate the suit property. Hence, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1 seeking an order of temporary injunction.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contends that the plaintiffs are strangers and have failed to establish their relationship with late Narasimhamurthy. It is contended that there was a prior partition in the year 1981 between the defendant and Narasimhamurthy, under which the suit property fell to the exclusive share of the defendant. It is contended that the Narasimhamurthy had already alienated his share during his lifetime and therefore no joint family property exists for partition. It is contended that the suit is barred by limitation and is also barred for partial partition.

4. That the Trial Court failed to consider the material on record and erroneously held that the prima facie case exists. It is submitted that there is no imminent threat of alienation and therefore no case for grant of injunction was made out.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that they are the wife and children of late Narasimhamurthy and entitled to share in the suit schedule property. It is contended that the suit property is a ancestral and joint family property and has not been partitioned. The defendant has illegally mutated his name in the revenue records and is attempting to alienate the property to defeat their lawful rights. It is contended that for considering an application for temporary injunction, a detailed adjudication on title is not required. The Trial Court upon consideration of the material has rightly held that a prima facie case exists, balance of convenience lies in the