Karnataka High Court
Property and Real Estate LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Defendants’ Undertaking Not to Alienate Suit Properties Recorded Until Disposal of Partition Suit.

MR. SRIDHAR vs MS. RAMA RANI ALIAS RAMAHSHREE

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 16, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Defendants’ Undertaking Not to Alienate Suit Properties Recorded Until Disposal of Partition Suit.. MR. SRIDHAR vs MS. RAMA RANI ALIAS RAMAHSHREE. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The plaintiffs filed a partition suit seeking separate possession of their respective shares and consequential reliefs.

Source reference: p. 3

Along with the suit, they sought temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; although an ad interim injunction was initially granted, the trial court dismissed the application after hearing the parties.

Source reference: pp. 3–4

The plaintiffs appealed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

Source reference: p. 4

During the appeal, settlement discussions failed, and the plaintiffs sought a restraint against alienation of the suit properties.

Source reference: pp. 4–6

The respondents’ counsel undertook that the defendants would not alienate the properties until disposal of the suit, and the plaintiffs agreed to continuation of that undertaking.

Source reference: pp. 4–6
02

Issues

1. Whether the appeal against dismissal of the temporary-injunction application should be disposed of on the basis of the respondents’ undertaking not to alienate the suit properties pending the suit

Source reference: pp. 5–7

2. Whether the trial court’s order dismissing the injunction application should be set aside without adjudicating the merits of the application

Source reference: pp. 6–7
03

Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, which provides for an appeal from specified orders under Order XXXIX.

Source reference: pp. 3–4

The underlying injunction application was made under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which govern temporary injunctions.

Source reference: pp. 3–4

The Court did not apply or articulate any substantive test for granting an injunction, and cited no precedent; it expressly left the merits of the dispute and application undecided.

Source reference: pp. 3–4, 7
04

Reasoning

Rather than determine whether the plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for temporary injunctive relief, the Court acted on the parties’ agreement that the defendants would not alienate the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties until disposal of the suit.

Source reference: pp. 5–7

It therefore recorded the undertaking, set aside the trial court’s order, and left all contentions open, making clear that it had expressed no opinion on the merits.

Source reference: pp. 5–7
05

Holding

The appeal was disposed of, and the trial court’s order dated 23 January 2026 dismissing I.A. No. 1 was set aside.

The undertaking by respondent-defendants 1 and 2 not to alienate the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties until disposal of the suit was recorded.

Source reference: pp. 7–8

The Court left the merits and all contentions open and directed the trial court to endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously, with the parties to cooperate.

Source reference: pp. 7–8
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

MR. SRIDHARvsMS. RAMA RANI ALIAS RAMAHSHREE

Karnataka High Court · September 16, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment