IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8171 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

MRS. THARA PEETHAMBARAM W/O LATE DR. P. PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.45, 9^TH CROSS, PARIMALANAGAR, NANDHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 098.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI SRINIVASAN RAGHAVAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. KALIGOTLA NITYA & SRI SMARAN SHETTY, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. HARISHANKAR PEETHAMBARAM S/O LATE PEETHAMBARAM PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT PLOT NO.SM3, 2^ND CROSS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M 3^RD STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, Location: HIGH BENGALURU-560058.

COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. DR. KRISHNARJUN PEETHAMBARAM S/O LATE PEETHAMBARAM PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO. 45, 9^TH CROSS, PARIMALANAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 098.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.S. SHYAMSUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI BHARGAV K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

V/O. DATED 18.11.2025 NOTICE TO R-2 IS D/W)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2024 IN O.S.NO.25729/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LD. LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-73) AT MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, 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 defendant No. 1 calling in question the order dated 18.10.2025 passed on I.A.No. 1/2024 in OS No. 25729/2024 on the file of LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and restrained the defendants from alienating or creating third party rights over the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The suit in OS No. 25729/2024 is filed by the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession in respect of schedule A, B and C properties. The appellant herein is defendant No. 1. The grievance in the present appeal is confined only to schedule ‘C’ property. It is not in dispute that schedule ‘C’ property stands in the name of defendant No. 1 so also reflected in para 10 of the plaint. It is further stated that certain other properties had already been relinquished in favour of the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the same, the Trial Court has granted an order of injunction in respect of all the suit schedule property including schedule ‘C’ property.

3. Sri Srinivasan Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that schedule ‘C’ property stands in the name of the defendant No. 1 and carries a statutory presumption of absolute ownership under section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘the Act, 1956’ for short). It is contended that in the absence of any prima facie material to show that property is a joint family property, the Trial Court was not justified in restraining the appellant from dealing with her own property.

4. Per contra, Sri M.S.Shyamsundar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1-plaintiff seeks to justify the impugned order contending that the property forms part of the joint family estate and that mere standing of the property in the name of a female member is not conclusive and would not fall under the scope and ambit of Section 14. Reliance is placed on the following decisions :

(i) Saurabh Gupta v. Archna Gupta and Others, 2024 SCC Online ALL 2268 (Saurab Gupta)

(ii) Smt. Narasamma and Others vs Smt.

Achachamma and Others² (Narasamma)

2012 SCC Online Kar 8314

(iii) Narasamma and Others vs Akkamma and Others³ (Akkamma)

(iv) Kumari Sunita vs Manju and Others (Kumari Sunita)

(v) Narasimhan vs Nagendiran and Others (Narasimhan)

(vi) K.N.Narayanaswamy vs K.Nanjegowda and Others⁶ (K.N.Narayanaswamy)

(vii) Chinnappan vs Ramachandran (Chinnappan)

(vii