IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HOSAKOTE.

PRESENT:

Sri. Arun Kumar. G. B. A. . , LL. B. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosakote.

Dated this the 4th day of June – 2025

O. S. No. 1084 /2022 (OLd. No. 1657/2014)

Plaintiff/s: Sri. C. Nagesh

- V/s -

Defendant/s: Smt. . Anjinamma & Ors.

Orders on I. A. No. 6

The Plaintiff has filed I. A. No. 6 under Order 39 Rule 1 aND 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from putting up any sort of constructions over the Suit item No. 1 property pending disposal of the Suit.

2. In the annexed affidavit it is stated that, he has filed the above Suit against the Defendants for the relief of partition aND separate possession aND other reliefs. The Plaintiff aND Defendants are the Hindu undivided joint family members aND the Suit schedule properties are the ancestral aND joint family properties of themselves. One Chikkappaiah was the kartha of the family aND after his death, the revenue records were mutated in the name of Plaintiff aND Defendant No. 1. When such being the case, the Defendant No. 1 aND 2 without the knowledge aND consent of the Plaintiff has soLd. the portion of the Suit schedule property in favour of Defendant No. 3 aND 4 through a registered sale deeds dated 11-12-2009. When the Plaintiff demanded for half share in the Suit schedule properties, the Defendant No. 1 aND 2 were not effected the partition aND now they are trying to alienate the properties in favour of third parties. Hence, prays to allow the application.

3. The Defendants have not filed any objections to the above application.
4. Based upon the above contentions of the Plaintiff, following points arise for consideration of this court:

• 1. Whether the Plaintiff has made out prima facie case in his favour?
• 2. Whether the balance of convenience lies in his favour?
• 3. If temporary injunction is not granted who will suffer great hardship aND injustice?
• 4. What order?

5. Heard the arguments of Plaintiff side aND on due perusal of the records, the court findings on the above points are as under: | Point No. 1 to 3: | | In the Negative, | |-------------------|---|----------------------------------------------| | Point No. 4 |: | As per the final order
   for the following; |

R E A S O N S

6. Point No. 1 to 3: - These points are inter-linked with each other. Therefore, in order to avoid the repetition of facts aND circumstances, they are taken together at one stretch for common discussion. The above Suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for partition aND separate possession in respect of the Suit schedule properties. Further, the Plaintiff has filed I. A. No. 5 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to delete the Suit item No. 2 to 6 properties mentioned in the plaint. Further, he has filed the above application seeking an ad interim order of temporary injunction against the Defendant No. 1 restraining her from putting up any sort of constructions over the Suit item No. 1 property.

7. On sufficient opportunities granted by this court, the Defendant No. 1 has not filed any objections to the above application.
8. The Plaintiff in support of his case he has produced RTC extracts in respect of Suit item No. 1 property which is in the name of Defendant No. 1, acquired under MRT. No. 21/2018-19 through partition. Further, the Plaintiff has produced the photographs which shows that the Defendant has almost completed the construction work over the said property. At this stage if the Defendant is restrained from putting up further constructions, she may put to great loss aND injustice.

9. Further, as per photographs the Defendant No. 1 has collected men aND materials for construction of the said building. Therefore, at this stage the Plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case aND the balance of convenience is also not lies on his favour. At this stage, if the Defendant No. 1 is restrained she may put to great loss aND injustice rather than the Plaintiff. Hence, on the above reasons, I answered point No. 1 to 3 in "Negative".
10. Point No. 4: - In view of the aforesaid findings on point No. 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

1. 1. No. 6 filed by the Plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 aND 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC is hereby rejected. No order as to costs. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me aND then pronounced in the open court on this the 4th day of June 2025. ) (Arun Kumar. G) Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosakote. 7 O. S. No. 1084/2022

PS: Copyright: eCourtsIndia.com. AI-enhanced; accuracy may vary.

References: Case Number - O.S./1084/2022 | Case Type - O.S. | CNR Number - KABR510033282022 | Complex Name - Senior CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ,HOSKOTE | Court Name - 1187-arun KUMAR g-senior Civil Judge | Filing Date - 07-11-2022 | Judge Name - 1187-Senior Civil Judge | List Date - 2025-06-04 | Order Date - 2025-06-04 | Order Number - 1 | Petitioner Advocates - Ambresh | Petitioner Parties - Nagesh C Advocate - Ambresh | Respondent Parties - Anjinamma2) Nandeesha Alias Prakash 3) Thejeswini N 4) Vijayakumar G | Status - Orders