Galamma v. Galli Hanumanthappa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 38505 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:

¶1GALAMMA D/O. LATE GALI HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT PATTANAGERE VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 098.

¶2ANJINAPPA S/O. LATE GALI HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.167 PATTANGERE VILLAGE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE – 560 098.

¶3SMT. MAHESHWARI D/O. LATE GALI HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.167 PATTANGERE VILLAGE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE – 560 098.

¶4NARAYANA G. S/O. LATE GALI HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.167 PATTANGERE VILLAGE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE -560 09.8 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2025:KHC:54757( WP(No.(38505(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( AND:( (

1., GALLI,HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O.,LATE,HANUMANRHAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,59,YEARS, THR/AT,NO.110/A,,4 ,CROSS, NEAR,MARAMMA,TEMPLE, PATTANAGERE, RAJARAJESHWARI,NAGAR, BANGALORE,SOUTH, BENGALURU,–,560,098., ,

2., SMT.,GALAMMA, D/O.,LATE,HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,56,YEARS, R/AT,PATTANGERE,VILLAGE, KENGERI,HOBLI, BENGALURU,–,560,098., ,

3., ANJAN,MURTHY, S/O.,LATE,HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,45,YEARS, R/AT,#167,,NEAR,MARAMMA,, TEMPLE,,PATTANGERE, RAJARAJESHWARI,NAGAR, BANGALORE,SOUTH,TALUK, BANGALORE,–,560,098., ,

4., BASAPPA, S/O.,LATE,SIDDAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,98,YEARS, R/AT,PATTANAGERE,VILLAGE, KENGERI,HOBLI, BENGALURU,-,560,098., ,

5., SUSHEELAMMA, W/O.,RAMAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,85,YEARS, R/AT,THEERTHAHALLI,VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA,–,577,432., , NC:(2025:KHC:54757( WP(No.(38505(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

6., K.T.,INDIRA, W/O.,LATE,K.M.,THIMMAIAH, AGED,ABOUT,83,YEARS, R/AT,NO.M7,,SCHOOL,ROAD, SOMAVARPET,,COORG,–,571,236., ,

7., K.T.SANATH, S/O.,LATE,K.M.,THIMMAIAH, AGED,ABOUT,56,YEARS, R/AT,NO.M7,,SCHOOL,ROAD, SOMAVARPET,,COORG,–,571,236., ,

8., M/.S,M.,SQUARE,PROPERTIES, RE.P,BY,ITS,SOLE,PROPRIETOR, MR.,NARESH,KUMAR, S/O.,LATE,HEERACHAND, AGED,ABOUT,53,YEARS, R/AT,#62,,63,,88,AND,89, HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK,III,STAGE, BANGALORE,–,560,085., ,

9., M/S.,ELEGANT,ALTIMA, A,PARTNERSHIP,FIR, ,HAVING,ITS,REGISTERED,, OFFICE,AT,NO.11/13, GUBALAHALA,VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE,–,560,061, REP.,BY,ITS,PARTNERS., ,

10., SRI,S.N.,MANJUNATH, S/O.,SRI.M.SUBRAMANI, AGED,ABOUT,37,YEAR,, R/AT,NO.1/116, NEW,KEMPEGOWDA,LAYOUT, BSK,3RD,STAGE, BANGALORE,-,560,085., ,

11., SRI,S.RAJESH, S/O.,SRI,M.SUBRAMAN, NC:(2025:KHC:54757( WP(No.(38505(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( AGED,ABOUT,35,YEARS, R/AT,NO.1/116,,, NEW,KEMPEGOWDA,LAYOUT, RDBSK,3 ,STAGE, BANGALORE,-,560,085., ,

12., SRI,S.JAYANTH, S/O.,SRI,M.SUBRAMANI, AGED,ABOUT,32,YEARS, R/AT,NO.1/116, NEW,KEMPEGOWDA,LAYOUT, RDBSK,3 ,STAGE, BANGALORE-560,085., ,

13., SRI,S.CHANDRAPRAKASH, S/O.,LATE,MUNASWAMY,NAIDU, AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS, R/AT,NO.767,,SREENIKETHA, TH RD7 ,MAIN,,3 ,CROSS, KSRTC,LAYOUT, NDJ.P,NAGAR,,2 ,PHASE, BENGALURU,–,560,075., …RESPONDENTS, , , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLE,227,OF, THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,QUASH,THE,ORDER, DATED, 26.06.2024, IN, O.S.NO.4497/2024, PASSED, BY, THE, XXXV, ADDITIONAL, CITY, CIVIL, AND, SESSIONS, JUDGE,, BENGALURU,(CCH-36),TO,THE,EXTENT,OF,NOT,GRANTING,AD, INTERIM,EX,PARTE,INJUNCTION,ON,AN,APPLICATION,FILED,BY, THE,PLAINTIFFS,UNDER,ORDER,XXXIXX,RULE,1,AND,2,OF,CPC,, RESTRAINING, THE, DEFENDANTS, OR, ANYBODY, CLAIMING, UNDER, THEM, FROM, CREATING, 3RD, PARTY, INTEREST, VIDE, ANNEXURE-A,AND,ETC., , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,,THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:,

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioners-plaintiffs.

¶2The petitioners are the plaintiffs, who have instituted a suit in O.S.No.4497/2024 against the respondents-defendants before the trial Court seeking following reliefs: "a. The Plaintiffs are entitled for 1½ share in the suit schedule property and put them in separate possession with meets and bounds. b. Declare that the registered Sale deed dated

08.03.1965 executed by Late Hanumanthappa in favour of Basappa registered as Document No.5784/1964-65, Book-I, Volume 506, pages 183 to 187 in the office of Sub Registrar, Bengaluru South Taluk as null and void and not binding on the share of Plaintiffs. c. Declare that the registered Sale deed dated

02.02.1996 executed by Basappa in favour of Sanath registered as Document No.12705/1995-96 Book-I, Volume 1503, page 71-75 in the office of Kengeri Sub-Registrar as null and void and not binding on the share of Plaintiffs.

d. Declare that the registered Sale deed dated

02.02.1996 executed by Basappa in favour of Susheelamma registered as Document No.12709/1995-96 Book-I, Volume 1503, page 78-82 in the office of Kengeri Sub-Registrar as null and void and not binding on the share of Plaintiffs. e. Declare that the registered Sale deed dated

25.11.2003 executed by Susheelamma in favour of K.T Indira registered as Document No.22934/2003-04 of Book-I, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri as null and void and not binding on the share of Plaintiffs. f. Declare that the registered Gift deed dated

22.11.2006 executed by K.T Indira in favour of Sanath registered as Document No.30596/2006-07, in the office of Sub-registrar, Kengeri as null and void and not binding on the share of Plaintiffs. g. Declare that the registered Sale deed dated

26.03.2021 executed by Sanath in favour of M/s Elegant Altima registered as Document No.SHR-1-06548/2020-21 stored in CD No.SHRD693, Book-1, in the office of Shantinagar Sub-Registrar as null and void and not binding on the share of Plaintiffs.

h. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice. i. For costs of this suit;"

¶3Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs have filed an applications in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, wherein they sought for an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction against defendant Nos.9 to 13 restraining them either through themselves, or their agents, servants or anybody claiming under them alienating or creating third interest and from putting up further construction over the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. The affidavit was also annexed to the said applications.

¶4The trial Court, after hearing the petitioners-plaintiffs on the applications for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction filed under XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, issued an emergent notice on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and suit summons to

the defendants. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners-plaintiffs are before this Court.

¶5This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents, as the same is not yet served before the trial Court on the suit proceedings or on the application.

¶6It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners-plaintiffs that despite filing an applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and arguing the matter for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction, the trial Court has passed a vague order whereby neither the applications are allowed nor rejected. However, it has issued emergent notice by stating that it would be proper to hear the defendants before passing any interim order.

¶7Under the circumstance, it would be appropriate to direct the trial Court to take up the matter on priority basis and pass suitable orders on the said applications,

whether the defendants are served partly or not, in order to protect the interests of the parties. Since the suit is for partition, no third-party rights are created.

¶8When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in the suit proceedings, it is the duty and obligation of the trial Court to pass suitable orders on the said application by following Proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC, wherein the plaintiffs are seeking relief of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction before issuance of notice to the defendants as the delay in issuance of notice would cause irreparable hardship and injury to the plaintiffs.

¶9In those circumstances, it is provided in the provision that under extraordinary exceptional circumstances, if the trial Court is satisfied to grant such a relief prior to issuance of notice to the defendants, the same could be granted. It is not necessary in all cases that the trial Court would have to issue emergent notice or

hear the defendant/s before passing an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. There are two stages arising out of the provision under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, i.e., to issue notice and thereafter, hear and pass orders when there is no urgency made out or the delay would not cause any harm to the plaintiff/s. However, on the contrary, when the delay in issuance of notice infringes the personal liberty, right or damage to the property or creates threat to the person or property of the plaintiff/s, the trial Court is obligated and duty bound to pass a reasoned order to protect the plaintiff and preserve his property.

¶10It is relevant to note that while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the trial Court would have to adhere to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar Chadha v/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in

(1993) SCC 161, Time City infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow V/s

State of U.P. and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v/s Smt.Rajul Devi reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191 and also this Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association v/s Mr. Shashidhara A.V. in W.P.No.33725/2025 (decided on 17.11.2025).

¶11However, in the present case on hand, the fact is that the trial Court has not bothered to pass a reasoned order either to grant or reject an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable.

¶12Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is disposed off; ii. The matter is remitted back to XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru to pass suitable orders on the applications filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. In case the defendants are served and objections are filed, the

same can be taken and if others are not served, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed and pass orders in accordance with law; iii. The trial Court shall pass suitable reasoned orders on the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 by following due process of law and adhering to the provisions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, Proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC, the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the judgment of this Court, strictly; iv. The Petitioners are at liberty to move the trial Court during vacation for urgent interim relief; v. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2