Trending :

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

2026-08-06 12:19:53

Font size:

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

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

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:

One-Time Download (₹149 ₹99) Get Subscription

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Conditions for Land Conversion — Land Granted on New and Impartible Tenure Remains Occupancy Class II and Subject to Unearned Income Payment Under Section 29 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. 2026-08-06 12:19:53

High Court High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench Quashes Maharashtra Transport Authority's Lottery System for Inter-State Stage Carriage Permits. The Court Holds that the Quasi-Judicial Function of Granting Permits Under the Motor Vehicles Act Cannot ... 2026-08-06 12:19:53

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)

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.

Issue of Consideration

Case Details

Nature of Litigation

Remedy Sought

Filing Reason

Previous Decisions

Issues

Judgment Excerpts

Procedural History

Acts & Sections

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...

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5184 OF 2026

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Against School Tribunal's Denial of Reinstatement t...

Supreme Court Disposes Appeal by Consent Appointing Arbitrator in MSME Dispute, Leaving Le...

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2247 of 2024)

Supreme Court Examines Employee's Right to Withdraw Resignation and Effect of Ratification...

Supreme Court Hears Appeals Against Madras High Court’s Setting Aside of Alienations and...

Supreme Court Hears Appeals on Permanent Establishment of Formula One World Championship L...