Case Note & Summary
The matter pertains to two appeals filed against the order of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, dated 26 September 2019, in Original Suit No. 4709 of 2019. The suit was filed by four daughters of one Lakshmidevi—Smt. Chandraprabha, Smt. Swayamprabha, Smt. Sathyaprabha, and Smt. Savithri—who claimed a 1/7th share in the properties left by their maternal grandfather, K. Lakshman Sa. The plaintiffs alleged that the schedule properties, which included immovable and movable properties as well as business assets, originally belonged to K. Lakshman Sa, who died in 1973. His wife Gangamma died in 1978, and their daughter Lakshmidevi, the plaintiffs’ mother, died in 2006. The defendants were other descendants of K. Lakshman Sa, including his other children and their families. The plaintiffs contended that the properties were the self-acquired properties of K. Lakshman Sa and that they were entitled to a share through their mother. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit properties pending disposal of the suit. The trial court initially granted an ex parte ad interim temporary injunction. Subsequently, the defendants filed applications under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC to vacate the ex parte order. After hearing the parties, the trial court, by the impugned order, dismissed the plaintiffs’ injunction application and vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction. Aggrieved by this decision, the plaintiffs preferred these two appeals under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. The High Court of Karnataka heard the appeals together. The court considered the background facts, including the family tree, the nature of the properties, and the basis of the claim. The judgment sets out the procedural history and the respective contentions but does not record the final decision in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Vacation of Ex Parte Order - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1, 2, 4, Section 151 - Plaintiffs, claiming as grandchildren, filed suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral properties alleging that defendants were attempting to alienate the suit properties to defeat their legitimate share - Trial court initially granted an ex parte ad interim temporary injunction but after hearing the defendants vacated the ex parte order and dismissed the application for temporary injunction - Appeals filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against the vacation order (Paras 1–3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order vacating the temporary injunction and dismissing I.A.No.1 was legally sustainable?
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- vacation of ex parte order
- partition suit
- ancestral property
- share of grandchildren
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
- Section 151
- Order 43 Rule 1(r)
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (09) 80
M.F.A.No.1638/2020 C/W M.F.A.No.1849/2020
Sri Sandesh Chouta (for Swayam Prabha); Sri Ismail Muneeb Musba; Sri Abhinav R; Sri D R Ravishankar; Sri Udaya Holla; Sri V Haridas Bhat; Sri Ganapathi Hegde; Dua Associates; Sri Abhinav Ramanand; Sri Jayakumar S Patil; Smt. Shobha Patil
Smt. Swayam Prabha (in MFA 1638/2020) and Smt. Chandraprabha, Smt. Sathyaprabha, Smt. Savithri (in MFA 1849/2020)
Sri K L Ramachandra Sa and 22 others (including Smt. Padmavati, Smt. Suvarna, Sri K N Eshwar, Sri K N Venkusa, Smt. Anuradha, Sri K N Madhusudhan, Smt. Rajalakshmi, Sri K H Gurunath, Smt. Dhanalakshmi, Sri K H Srinivas, Sri K H Radheshyam, Smt. Hemamalini, Smt. Vijayanthimala, Sri K L Anantha Padmanabhasa, Sri K L Swamy, Smt. Gowramma, Sri M M Ananthamurthy, Smt. Suryaprabha, Prestige Estate Projects Ltd., and others)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for partition and separate possession of schedule properties, accompanied by an application for temporary injunction.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit.
Filing Reason
Plaintiffs claimed 1/7th share in the properties of their maternal grandfather K. Lakshman Sa, alleging that defendants were attempting to alienate the properties to defeat their rightful share.
Previous Decisions
The trial court initially granted an ex parte ad interim temporary injunction but subsequently dismissed I.A.No.1 and vacated the ex parte order on 26.09.2019.
Issues
Whether the trial court's order vacating the temporary injunction and dismissing I.A.No.1 was legally sustainable?
Judgment Excerpts
These two appeals are directed against the orders passed on I.A.Nos.1, 18, 22 and 24 in O.S.NO.4709/2019 by the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, CCH 28, wherein, the learned trial judge rejected I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and ad interim order of temporary injunction granted exparte was vacated.
The background of the case is that original suit in O.S.No.4709/2019 was filed by (1)Smt.Chandraprabha; (2)Swayamprabha; (3) Sathyaprabha and (4)Smt. Savithri. All are the daughters of one Lakshmidevi.
Plaintiffs are claiming their share to the extent of 1/7th in the suit schedule properties under the branch of Smt.Lakshmidevi @ Lakshmidevamma, daughter of K.Lakshman Sa and Gangamma.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.4709/2019 seeking partition and separate possession of schedule properties. Along with the suit, they filed I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction to restrain defendants from alienating the suit properties. The trial court granted an ex parte ad interim temporary injunction. Defendants filed I.A.Nos.18, 22 and 24 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacating the ex parte order. After hearing, the trial court, by order dated 26.09.2019, dismissed I.A.No.1 and vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction. Aggrieved, plaintiffs filed MFA No.1638/2020 and MFA No.1849/2020 under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Section 151, Order 43 Rule 1(r)
