Karnataka HC Upholds Rejection of Sister’s Plea to Retrieve Belongings From Family Home, Citing Earlier Visit That Found None

The plaintiff filed a partition suit and sought, through I.A. No. III under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), permission to collect clothes, jewellery, money, records and other belongings allegedly kept on the ground floor of the suit property.

Her earlier application for temporary injunction was dismissed, but in MFA No. 2885 of 2022 the High Court permitted the parties’ counsel to visit the property and remove any of her belongings found there; the counsel’s visit did not locate the claimed articles, including her passport.

The trial Court dismissed I.A. Nos. III and IV. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of I.A. No. III; I.A. No. IV was the subject of a pending writ petition.

The application was made under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC, and the appeal was brought under Section 104(1)(i) read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

The High Court considered whether the trial Court had exercised its judicial discretion in accordance with law and whether its decision disclosed illegality or perversity warranting interference.

The Court also considered the directions made in the earlier appeal, MFA No. 2885 of 2022, which afforded the plaintiff an opportunity to inspect the property with counsel and remove any belongings found there.

The earlier inspection opportunity had been exercised, but the counsel did not find the claimed belongings in the property.

The trial Court had considered the result of that exercise and the relevant affidavit when deciding I.A. No. III.

In those circumstances, the High Court found no sufficient ground to conclude that the trial Court had acted illegally or perversely in dismissing the application.

It did not address the merits of I.A. No. IV, which remained pending in the writ petition.

It expressed no opinion on the merits of the underlying suit and kept the parties’ contentions open.