H.C. JAYARAM Vs. KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal questioning the order passed by the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore dated 08.07.2014 in O.S. No. 3907/2009 dismissing application - I.A. No. 11 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC whereunder plaintiff sought for an order of restraint against defendants from changing the nature of suit property pending disposal of the suit.

(2.) I have heard Sri Amaresh A Angadi, learned Advocate appearing for appellant.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Advocate appearing for appellant and on perusal of the order under challenge as also pleadings, it would indicate that plaintiff sought for partition and share in the suit schedule properties contending inter alia that first defendant had expressed urgency in dividing the suit properties in the year 1983 and allegedly brought into existence an unregistered Palupatti and assured said Palupatti is only an interim measure and it is not a division of properties by metes and bounds and as such, he contended that trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application when the plaintiff raised a serious dispute with regard to the alleged Palupatti dated 24.09.1983. Hence, he seeks for allowing the appeal and grant of injunction or in the alternate prays for directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to suit properties.