THARA PEETHAMBARAM Vs. HARISHANKAR PEETHAMBARAM.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by defendant No. 1 calling in question the order dtd. 18/10/2025 passed on I.A.No. 1/2024 in OS No. 25729/2024 on the file of LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and restrained the defendants from alienating or creating third party rights over the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit.

(2.) The suit in OS No. 25729/2024 is filed by the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession in respect of schedule A, B and C properties. The appellant herein is defendant No. 1. The grievance in the present appeal is confined only to schedule 'C' property. It is not in dispute that schedule 'C' property stands in the name of defendant No. 1 so also reflected in para 10 of the plaint. It is further stated that certain other properties had already been relinquished in favour of the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the same, the Trial Court has granted an order of injunction in respect of all the suit schedule property including schedule 'C' property.

(3.) Sri Srinivasan Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that schedule 'C' property stands in the name of the defendant No. 1 and carries a statutory presumption of absolute ownership under Sec. 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ('the Act, 1956' for short). It is contended that in the absence of any prima facie material to show that property is a joint family property, the Trial Court was not justified in restraining the appellant from dealing with her own property.