Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

High Court of Karnataka Reviews Trial Court Order on Memo and Injunction Application in Pending Partition Suit. Plaintiff Challenges Order Allowing Bank's Memo and Rejecting Interim Relief Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
Admin
2026-08-24 13:40:43
  • 86
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

The correctness of the order passed by the trial court on the memo filed by respondent No.4 (Canara Bank) and on the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, dated 24.11.2020

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (KAR) (08) 14

WRIT PETITION NO.15801/2020 (GM-CPC) C/W. M.F.A.No.895/2021 (CPC)

2023-08-24

H.P. Sandesh

Jayakumar S. Patil, Ajay Rao, C.K. Nandakumar, H.S. Rukkoji Rao, H.R. Katti, Shreyas Jayasimha, Hemant R. Rao

Smt. Ashwini Shetty

Sri Manohar Shetty, Smt. Harini Shetty, Ms. Arpita Shetty, Canara Bank, Allahabad Bank

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Partition suit along with declaration that loan agreements and deposit of title deeds are not binding on the plaintiff's share

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff seeks partition of HUF properties and declaration that mortgages executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favor of defendant banks are not binding on her share; interim injunction to restrain banks from alienating the properties

Filing Reason

Defendants refused to partition the HUF properties and had mortgaged them without plaintiff's consent, leading to recovery proceedings by banks before DRT

Previous Decisions

Trial court passed an order dated 24.11.2020 on a memo filed by Canara Bank and also rejected the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; these orders are challenged in the present writ petition and appeal

Issues

Whether the trial court's order on the memo filed by Canara Bank was without jurisdiction Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the interim injunction application

Judgment Excerpts

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S.No.8584/2012 is that the plaintiff is one of the daughter of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.3 is her sister and all of them have constituted a Hindu undivided family (HUF) and said Hindu Joint Family was in possession of several properties... It is further contended that the plaintiff learnt that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have availed loans from Canara Bank and Allahabad Bank mortgaging the suit schedule properties and on failure to repay the said loan amount, the said banks had initiated multiple OA proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bengaluru... It is contended that the plaintiff has a share, right, title and interest in the suit schedule properties and in view of the same, the above mentioned loans or deposit of title deeds or guarantees are not binding on the plaintiff or her share in the suit schedule properties...

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed partition suit O.S.No.8584/2012 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore. Trial court passed order dated 24.11.2020 on a memo filed by Canara Bank and rejected plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Plaintiff filed writ petition under Article 227 and MFA under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. High Court heard and reserved orders on 03.08.2023 and pronounced on 24.08.2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 227
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Order XLIII Rule 1(r)
  • Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
HUF partition suit interim injunction mortgage deposit of title deeds debt recovery tribunal memo maintainability Hindu undivided family joint family property kartha

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR and Magistrate's Order in Cooperative Bank Directors' Case — Abuse of Process and Lack of Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC. Criminal proceedings under Sections 406, 468, 477A IPC read with Section 34 IPC quashed as the ... 2026-09-20 17:22:46
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Dismissal of Teacher for Misconduct in Minority School — Procedural Compliance Under MEPS Act Not Required for Unauthorized Absence. Termination of a probationary teacher for unauthorized absence and misconduct is valid ev... 2026-09-20 17:22:45
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition Natural Justice acquittal murder compensation burden of proof limitation Article 226 land acquisition benefit of doubt
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

High Court of Bombay Hears Section 11 Arbitration Application for Appointment of Arbitrato...

Bombay High Court Allows Assessee in Central Excise Refund Interest Dispute Under Section ...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Income Tax Dispute — Jurisdiction under Section 263 U...

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Evidence. The prosecut...

Supreme Court Sets Aside Interim Orders in Arbitration Dispute Due to Lack of Consent. App...

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Orders Allowing Writ Petitions by Lessees in Land Encr...

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order Setting Aside Anganwadi Supervisor Appointment for ...

Lost Your Password?