IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A. NO.2608 OF 2014 (CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI.K.V.SUBRAMANI, S/O LATE VEERASWAMY NAIDU, AGED 72 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED).
2. SMT.RAMANJAMMAL, W/O K.V.SUBRAMANI, AGED 65 YEARS.
BOTH RESIDING AT NO.6, 2ND MAIN ROAD, PRAKASHNAGAR, BENGALURU – 560021, (SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED). …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI.S.LOKESH, S/O K.V.SUBRAMANI, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.70/71, 6TH A MAIN ROAD, 14TH CROSS, NEW 8TH CROSS, J.C.NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POST, BENGALURU – 560086.
2. SRI.S.BABU, S/O K.V.SUBRAMANI, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6, 2ND MAIN ROAD, PRAKASHNAGAR, BENGALURU – 560021. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S RAJASHEKAR AND ASSOCIATES FOR R1, R2 SERVED) **** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER MFA FILED UNDER ORDER 43, RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2013 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.2896/2012 ON THE FILED OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT NO.1 THEREIN FROM ALIENATING THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES TILL DISPOSAL OF THE SUIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 10.09.2013 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.2896/2012 pending before the V Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-13).
2. The facts briefly stated are that the plaintiff, who is respondent No.1 herein, had filed a suit for partition and separate possession against defendant Nos.1 to 3, who are the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.2 herein. Interlocutory application No.1 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and the defendant No.1, who is the appellant No.1 herein, was restrained from alienating the suit schedule properties till disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved by the said interim order, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 have preferred this appeal.
3. The only grievance of the appellants is that some of the properties were self-acquired properties of appellant No.1, as such, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 had no legal right or locus-standi to claim the partition or share in the said properties. But the learned trial judge, without considering the merits of the case, has come to the conclusion that if the properties are alienated, it leads to multiplicity of proceedings and passed the interim order restraining the defendant No.1/appellant No.1 from alienating the suit schedule properties till disposal of the suit.
4. The impugned order on I.A.No.1 was passed after filing of the written statement and objections by the defendants/appellants.
5. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the defence putforth before the trial Court has not been considered. No proper reasons are assigned. The findings given are erroneous.
6. It is submitted that, at present, the original suit is at the stage of cross-examination of the plaintiff P.W.1 before the trial Court. Counsel for both parties have submitted that they will cooperate for early disposal of the matter on merits of the case.
7. Under these circumstances, there is no necessity to consider the legality of the impugned order under challenge.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to both parties under to maintain status quo with respect to alienation, till disposal of the suit.
BSR Sd/- JUDGE