B.V. Nagarathna JUDGMENT
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 22.09.2020 in M.F.A. No. 1638/2020 and M.F.A. No. 1849/2020 (Code of Civil Procedure), by which the High Court has allowed the aforesaid appeals in part and has modified the interim injunction granted by the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, CCH 28 (hereinafter referred to as the learned 'trial Court') passed in IA Nos. 1, 18, 22 and 24 in O.S. No. 4709/2019 and restricted the injunction against alienation to the extent of 1/7th share in the total plaint Schedule properties till the disposal of the case, the third parties have preferred the present appeals.
2. That Respondent Nos. 1, 22, 23 and 24 herein have instituted O.S. No. 4709/2019 before the learned trial Court seeking a declaration that the Plaintiffs and Defendants 18 & 19 (Respondent Nos. 19 & 20 herein) are entitled to their mother Laxmi Devi's 1/7th share in the total plaint Schedule properties and consequently prayed for a decree for partition and separate possession. They have also further sought a declaration that 2015 Settlement Deed is void ab-initio.
2.1. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the plaint Schedule properties consist of number of properties ranging from A1 to A40 in the said suit. The original Plaintiffs filed IA No. 1 in OS No. 4709/2019 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction qua the suit Schedule properties. The learned trial Court initially granted ex-parte injunction restraining the Defendants in the suit from alienating and creating any charge and third party interest upon the suit Schedule properties to the extent of the Plaintiffs share, till the next date of hearing of the interim injunction application. That by order dated 26.09.2019, the learned trial Court dismissed IA No. 1 in OS No. 4709/2019 and refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs, inter alia, holding that some of the suit Schedule properties are evidently owned by the firms/trusts/companies which entities have not been made parties to the suit.
2.2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court refusing to grant injunction, one of the Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 4709/2019 preferred M.F.A. No. 1638/2020 before the High Court. The other Plaintiffs also filed a separate appeal being M.F.A. No. 1849/2020 (Code of Civil Procedure). By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has partly allowed the said appeals and has modified the order passed by the learned trial Court in the interim injunction application and has directed to issue restraint order qua the Defendants against the alienation to the extent of 1/7th share in the total plaint Schedule properties till disposal of the case. The High Court has also passed an order insofar as the activity such as construction, improvements, whether fresh or modification, are conducted over the Schedule properties, the party doing so shall be doing it at his risk and shall not be entitled to claim equity at the end.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court granting injunction to the extent of 1/7th share in the total plaint Schedule properties, the third parties to the suit have preferred the present appeals.
3.1. It is the case on behalf of the Appellants that........