Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31703
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.S. Hemalekha, J
Chowdamma – Appellant
Versus
Muniyamma – Respondent
MFA No. 5047 of 2025 | MFA No. 5054 of 2025
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Injunctions
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Temporary Injunction - Maintenance of properties - Grant of blanket injunction - Where partitions have been acted upon and parties in separate enjoyment, grant of blanket injunction on self-acquired properties, without prima facie right, is unsustainable. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
Suit for partition and separate possession filed by plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos. 22-27 filed applications under O. XXXIX R. 1 & 2 CPC for injunction against the plaintiff and other defendants. The Trial Court allowed both applications, restraining all parties from alienation or alteration of properties. Appellants (Defendants 1, 6-9) challenged the order on grounds of maintainability (specifically regarding R. 1(b)&(c)) and merits (the nature of the properties as self-acquired).
Findings of Court:
Court set aside the Trial Court’s order, holding that while I.A. No. 8 was maintainable under R. 1(a), no prima facie case was established; furthermore, I.A. No. 9 was held not maintainable for defendants in the absence of a counter-claim per the Shakunthalamma ruling.
Issues: The main issues were whether a defendant can seek an injunction under O. XXXIX R. 1(b) and (c) CPC without a counter-claim and whether the Trial Court’s blanket grant of injunction against self-acquired properties was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: A defendant is barred from seeking injunctive relief under O. XXXIX R. 1(b) and (c) in a suit filed by the plaintiff unless a counter-claim is filed; additionally, blanket injunctions on admitted self-acquired properties without prima facie evidence of joint interest are perverse.
Result: Appeals allowed; impugned order set aside.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.N. Nitish, K.V. Narasimhan
For the Respondents: Goutham M.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals against interlocutory injunctions involving joint property claims. (Para 2) |
| 2. factual background of the partition suit and the contested injunction applications. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. appellants contending non-maintainability and the existence of partition deeds. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. scope of order xxxix rule 1(a) regarding parties entitled to claim injunction. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. invalidity of blanket injunctions on non-disputed self-acquired properties. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. restrictions on defendants seeking injunction under rule 1(b) and (c) without counter-claims. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. setting aside orders for non-application of judicial mind. (Para 18 , 19) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
These miscellaneous first appeals are filed by appellants-defendant Nos.1, 6 to 9 against the common order dated 16.04.2025 passed on I.A. Nos.8 and 9 in O.S. No.4323/2021 by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru (CCH-12) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the applications filed by defendant Nos.22 to 27 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC have been allowed, restraining the plaintiff, appellants and other defendants from alienating or creating any third party rights and from putting up construction or altering the nature of the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit.
2. Since both the appeals arise out of the common order and involve common questions of law and facts, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common judgment.
Brief facts:
3. The plaintiff has instituted suit seeking a relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties, contending that the same are the joint family properties of late Veerappa and that she is entitled for 1/5th share therein. It is her case, that late Veerappa had acquired various properties during his lifetime and after his demise, the parties continued in joint possession and enjoyment of the said properties. It is further alleged that certain alienations were made by P.V. Hanumappa-husband of defendant No.1 and P.V. Byrappa-husband of defendant No.22 without her consent and knowledge.
4. Upon service of summons, defendant Nos.1, 6 to 9 have entered appearance and filed written statement inter alia, contending that some suit properties are the joint family properties and that certain items which are the self-acquired properties are included. It is specifically stated that a registered partition under the deed dated 30.11.2007 is effected between the family members in respect of the joint family properties, pursuant to which they are in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. It is further stated that the present suit is barred by limitation, having been filed after a long lapse of time and that the plaintiff, is not in joint possession.
5. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.22 to 27 filed applications-I.A. Nos.8 and 9 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff and other defendants from alienating, creating any third party rights and from putting up construction or altering the nature of the suit schedule properties. The appellants filed the objections opposing the said application.
6. The Trial Court, by its common order dated 16.04.2025, allowed the said applications, granted temporary injunction in favour of defendant Nos.22 to 27. Aggrieved, by which the present appeals are filed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken this Court through the genealogy of the parties, produced during the course of arguments and submits that there was a registered partition deed dated 30.11.2007 between defendants Nos.1, 6, and 7 to 9 (the branch of Hanumappa) and defendants Nos.22 to 27 (the branch of Byrappa). It is contended that only those properties, which were joint family properties, were subject matter of the partition and Item No.4, which was subject to the partition fell to the share of defendant Nos.1, 6, and 7 a
