THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 21.04.2026 PASSED IN MA NO. 41/2025 BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT ANNEXURE-G AND THEREBY RESTORE AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OD TEMPORARY INJUNCTION DATED 03.05.2025 PASSED IN IA NO. 1 IN OS NO. 495/2024 BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NELAMANGALA AT ANNEXURE D.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in M.A.No.41/2025 dated 21.04.2026 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, whereby the injunction that was granted by the trial Court in I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.495/2024 dated 03.05.2025 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala, is set aside.

2. The petitioners herein who are the plaintiffs in the suit had filed O.S.No.495/2024 for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the properties are joint family properties and the properties were sold in the year 1996 and 2023, but the plaintiffs have come to know about the said transactions in the year 2024 and hence, they had filed the present suit seeking partition. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had filed I.A. seeking injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property.

3. The trial Court had granted injunction by order dated 03.05.2025. While granting the injunction, the trial Court had observed that the plaintiffs have moved the trial Court seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property during the pendency of the suit. The gravamen of the plaintiffs' contention is that any alienation or transfer of property by the defendants who currently stand in possession and are registered in the revenue records would severely perverse the plaintiffs' right and render the entire litigation nugatory. The plaintiffs submitted that once the property is alienated, regaining possession or value would be fraught with difficulty, if not outright impossible, thereby causing irreparable injury. The trial Court had held that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs and they had laid out a prima facie case and accordingly granted injunction.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein who are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit had carried the same in appeal by filing MA.No.41/2025. The Appellate Court had set aside the order of injunction and while setting aside the order dated 03.05.2025, the Appellate Court had observed that though the trial Court had considered the aspects of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, it has ignored other settled principals of law such as the plaintiffs seeking equitable relief of temporary injunction should come to the Court with clean hands and should not suppress the material facts and should not be guilty of unreasonable delay and latches. The trial Court blindly granted temporary injunction, merely holding that the suit property previously stood in the name of deceased Doddathimmaiah, grandfather of the plaintiffs and that no document has been produced to prove partition or relinquishment in respect of the suit property. The Appellate Court had held that the findings of the trial Court is arbitrary and perverse and cannot be justified. The discretion exercised by the trial Court is not the one which was reasonably possible on the pleadings and materials placed before it. It is observed that the trial Court had also ignored the fact that the plaintiffs are guilty of delay and latches in approaching the Court and challenging the alienations.

Accordingly, the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court was vacated and the order dated 03.05.2025 was set aside.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that t