Smt. Lakshmamma v. Smt. Kantha G

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.20052/2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE V. GURUVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT DINNAKOTHUR VILLAGE YELESANDRA POST BUDHIKOTE HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK-563114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DARSHAN R, ADV.,)

AND:

¶1SMT. KANTHA .G W/O LATE UDAY SHANKAR D/O LATE V. GURUVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.199, THUBARAHALLI BEHIND KARUR VYSYA BANK R G HALLI POST VARTHUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560066.

¶2SRI. RAJA REDDY S/O LATE V. GURUVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT DINNAKOTHUR VILLAGE YELESANDRA POST BUDHIKOTE HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK-563114.

¶3SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE V. GURUVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:43161( W.P.(No.20052/2022( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010452602022( ( (

4., SMT.,PARVATHI, W/O,LATE,SRI.,G.,RATHNA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,46,YEARS., ,

5., SMT.,VANI, D/O,LATE,SRI.,G.,RATHNA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,27,YEARS., ,

7., SRI.,VINAY,REDDY, S/O,LATE,SRI.,G.,RATHNA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,22,YEARS., , R3,TO,R6,ARE,, R/AT,DINNAKOTHUR,VILLAGE, YELESANDRA,POST, BUDHIKOTE,HOBLI, BANGARPET,TALUK-563114., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,SUNIL,S.,RAO,,ADV.,,FOR, ,,,,,,SRI.,T.,SESHAGIRI,RAO,,ADV.,,FOR,R1, V/O/DTD:22.06.2023,,NOTICE,TO,R2,TO,R6,ARE,D/W), , , THIS, W.P., IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,,PRAYING,TO,CALL,FOR,RECORDS,IN, MISCELLANEOUS,APPEAL,NO.8/2021,BEFORE,3RD,ADDITIONAL, DISTRICT, AND, SESSIONS, JUDGE,, KOLAR, (SITTING, AT, KGF), AND, IN, ORIGINAL, SUIT, NO.24/2019, PENDING, BEFORE, THE, ADDITIONAL, SENIOR, CIVIL, JUDGE, AND, JMFC,, KGF., , SET, ASIDE, THE, ORDER, DTD, 16.08.2022, IN, MISCELLANEOUS, APPEAL, NO.8/2021, PASSED, BY, 3RD, ADDITIONAL, DISTRICT, AND, SESSIONS, JUDGE,, KOLAR, (SITTING, AT, KGF), WHEREIN, THE, LEARNED, DISTRICT, JUDGE, HAS, PASSED, AN, ORDER, IN, MISCELLANEOUS,APPEAL,NO.8/2021,PRODUCED,AT,ANNX-A,&, ETC., , , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING, IN, 'B', GROUP,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN, AS, UNDER:, , CORAM:(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(VIJAYKUMAR(A.(PATIL( ,

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order dated

16.08.2022 passed in MA.No.8/2021 by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at KGF), (for short 'the Appellate Court').

¶2Heard Sri.Darshan R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil S. Rao, learned counsel for Sri.T.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶3Respondent No.1 filed a suit in OS.No.24/2019 against the petitioner and others seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/11th share in the suit schedule properties, delivery of possession and other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant No.1 filed a written statement specifically contending that suit item Nos.6, 22 and 23 of the plaint schedule are her self-acquired

properties, acquired under registered sale deeds dated

21.06.1979 and 11.05.1994.

¶4It is to be noticed that, in paragraph No.2 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 12 constitute a Hindu joint family, being the family members of the original propositus, Sri.V.Guruva Reddy. Further, in paragraph No.7 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the land was granted in favour of defendant No.1, but the said grant was only nominally made in her name and the same is joint family property in the joint possession of the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), seeking an order restraining defendant Nos.1, 5 and 9 to 12, their family members etc., from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule properties to anybody in any manner till the

disposal of the suit. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 16.01.2021.

¶5Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff assailed the same before the Appellate Court in MA.No.8/2021. The Appellate Court, vide order dated

16.08.2022, allowed the appeal by setting aside the order dated 16.01.2021 passed in OS.No.24/2019 by restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties in any manner till the disposal of the suit.

¶6It is the specific case of defendant No.1 that suit item Nos.6, 22 and 23 properties are her self-acquired properties, by virtue of two registered sale deeds. On the other hand, the plaintiff has asserted in the plaint that the said properties were nominally granted in the name of defendant No.1, however, they are the joint family properties. It is further to be noticed that defendant No.1 specifically raised such contention before the Appellate Court, which has been extracted in paragraph No.13 of the

impugned order. However, the Appellate Court has not recorded any finding with regard to the same and, by a general finding, the Court concluded that there cannot be any alienation of the properties. In my considered view, the order of the Appellate Court requires modification to the aforesaid extent, as the Appellate Court is required to reconsider the appeal insofar as item Nos.6, 22 and 23 of the suit schedule properties is concerned, having regard to the specific contention raised by defendant No.1 and to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part. ii. The impugned order dated

16.08.2022 in MA.No.8/2021 insofar as item Nos.6, 22 and 23 of the suit schedule property is hereby set aside.

iii. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Court to reconsider the appeal insofar as the aforesaid items are concerned in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the date of appearance of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. iv. The parties, i.e., plaintiff and defendant No.1 undertake to appear before the Appellate Court on 07.09.2026. The Appellate Court need not issue notice to the other defendants except defendant No.1, if defendant No.1 fails to appear on the said date.

Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30