R. CHANDRAKUMAR Vs. DHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the fourth and fifth defendants in O.S. No.230/2020 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Magadi [for short, 'the civil Court']. The civil Court by the impugned order dtd. 22/7/2021 has allowed the first and second respondents -the plaintiffs' application [I.A. No.1] under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, 'the CPC'] restraining the appellants from alienating the suit schedule property.

(2.) The respondents have filed the suit in O.S. No.230/2020 for partition of the land measuring 2 acres 23 guntas in Sy. No.10/1 of Kethohalli Village, Chunchanaguppe Post, Thavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South District [the subject property] and for declaration that the sale deeds dtd. 3/3/2003 and 2/9/1999 executed by their father and brothers [the first and third defendants] in favour of the appellants respectively would not be binding on their share. These respondents contend that their father [the first defendant] acquired the subject property in a partition with his brother Gangappa and the revenue records are accordingly mutated in his favour. Therefore, they would be entitled for a share and their father and brothers have illegally sold the subject property in favour of the appellants. These respondents have asserted 2/8/2020 as the date of cause of action. The appellants have resisted the suit contending inter alia that they are the bona fide purchasers of the subject property and as of the date of the suit, the subject property was not a composite property.

(3.) Sri Ashok Kumar B G, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the partition suit is filed in the year 2020 though the first sale deed is in the year 1999 and describing the subject property as a composite property notwithstanding the sale in two portions. The appellants, who are bona fide purchasers, cannot be restrained from alienating their respective interests in the subject property. Sri. Ashok Kumar also submits that the chief reason for filing this appeal is because the respondents, taking advantage of the impugned order, are trying to interfere with the appellants' possession of the respective portions.