Interim Rent Deposit Order in Partition Suit | No Relief Without Ownership Enquiry : Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court recently underscored the necessity of conducting a thorough enquiry before granting interim relief in partition suits. The Court set aside a trial court order directing tenants to deposit 1/4th of the rent to the plaintiff in a partition suit, holding that such relief cannot be granted based solely on assertions without verifying property ownership, rent agreements, and mesne profits. The judgment reinforces that interim orders must not prejudge substantive issues in property disputes.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, K. Vasu, filed a writ petition challenging a common order dated 19.11.2022 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Mysuru, in O.S. No. 304/2018. The suit was filed by the respondent No. 1, M.V. Dayanand, seeking partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties, along with mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

Key Facts

• The suit schedule properties include:

  • Plaint ‘A’ Schedule Property: A building with ground, first, and second floors, let out to tenants under rent agreements dated 01.10.2019 and 18.01.2020. The tenants pay monthly rents of Rs. 62,000 and Rs. 10,500, respectively.
  • Plaint ‘B’ Schedule Property: Allegedly self-acquired by the defendant No. 1.
  • Written Statement Schedule Property: A business establishment in Shop No. 331, Devaraja Market, Mysuru, claimed as an ancestral business.

• The plaintiff, K. Vasu, is the father of the respondents (M.V. Dayanand, V. Krishna, and V. Raghu).

• The defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1) claims absolute ownership of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property through:

  • A registered partition deed dated 13.03.1975.
  • A sale deed dated 06.02.1980, wherein he purchased the share of his brother, K. Rajendra.

• The plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction (O.S. No. 825/2017) against the defendant No. 3 regarding the written statement schedule property. The injunction application was rejected, but the appellate court (M.A. No. 141/2017) directed the plaintiff to render accounts of the business transactions.

Procedural History

• 2018: Respondent No. 1 filed O.S. No. 304/2018 for partition and mesne profits.
• I.A. No. 11: Filed by the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 in the suit) seeking a direction to the tenants to deposit 1/4th of the rent payable to the Court.
• I.A. No. 12: Filed by the defendant No. 1 (petitioner herein) seeking a direction to the plaintiff to deposit monthly profits accrued from the business in the written statement schedule property.
• 19.11.2022: The Trial Court passed a common order:
  • Allowed I.A. No. 11, directing tenants to deposit 1/4th of the rent to the Court.
  • Rejected I.A. No. 12, refusing to direct the plaintiff to deposit business profits.
• 2022: The defendant No. 1 (petitioner herein) filed W.P. No. 26047/2022 challenging the order on I.A. No. 11.
• 03.07.2026: The writ petition was heard and reserved for orders.
• 07.07.2026: The High Court pronounced the judgment.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Setting aside the Trial Court’s order dated 19.11.2022 on I.A. No. 11, which directed tenants to deposit 1/4th of the rent to the Court.
• Rejection of I.A. No. 11.
• No interference with the Trial Court’s order on I.A. No. 12.
• Expeditious disposal of the suit (O.S. No. 304/2018).

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether a trial court can grant interim relief, such as directing deposit of rent or profits, in a partition suit without conducting a detailed enquiry into:

1. The ownership of the suit schedule properties.
2. The validity of rent agreements and the actual rent received.
3. The entitlement to mesne profits before the substantive issues are adjudicated.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• The Trial Court’s order on I.A. No. 11 was passed without any enquiry into the ownership of the property, the existence of rent agreements, or the actual rent received after deducting taxes and maintenance.
• The plaintiff’s assertion that he is entitled to 1/4th share of the rent cannot be accepted at face value without verification.
• The defendant No. 1 is claiming the suit schedule property as self-acquired, and the relief of mesne profits is yet to be adjudicated. Directing deposit of rent at this stage would prejudge the issue.
• The Trial Court failed to assign any reasons for allowing I.A. No. 11, making the order impermissible.

For the Respondent

• The respondent No. 1 (plaintiff in the suit) contended that the accounts were already furnished before the Trial Court and this Court (memo dated 07.11.2025), and thus, the correctness of the order on I.A. No. 12 need not be revisited.
• The plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share of the rent as the property is joint family property, and the tenants are paying rent to the defendant No. 1.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court critically examined the Trial Court’s approach in granting interim relief without a proper enquiry. The Court observed:

1. Lack of Enquiry: The Trial Court allowed I.A. No. 11 based solely on the plaintiff’s assertions, without verifying the ownership of the property, the existence of rent agreements, or the actual rent received after deducting expenses. The Court held:

   "The Trial Court ought to have conducted an enquiry with regard to the existence of the rent agreements, actual rent received by the defendant No.1 after paying taxes, maintenance, if any, etc. before allowing the application. However, in the absence of any such enquiry, based on the assertion made in the application, ordering for deposit of 1/4th share of the rent is impermissible."

2. Prejudging the Issue: The defendant No. 1 claims the suit schedule property as self-acquired, and the suit also seeks mesne profits. The Court noted that ordering deposit of rent without adjudicating these claims would amount to prejudging the substantive issues in the suit.

3. No Reasoning in Order: The Trial Court’s order on I.A. No. 11 lacked any reasoning, which is a fundamental requirement for judicial orders. The High Court emphasized that interim relief cannot be granted mechanically based on assertions alone.

4. Accounts Submitted: Regarding I.A. No. 12, the Court noted that the plaintiff had submitted accounts before the Trial Court and this Court (memo dated 07.11.2025). Thus, no interference was required with the Trial Court’s order rejecting I.A. No. 12.

5. Expeditious Disposal: The Court observed that the suit (O.S. No. 304/2018) was filed in 2018, and recording of evidence had not commenced due to multiple interlocutory applications. The Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously and stipulated a timeline for evidence recording.

The Verdict

The High Court allowed the writ petition in part and passed the following orders:

1. Set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 19.11.2022 on I.A. No. 11, which directed tenants to deposit 1/4th of the rent to the Court. I.A. No. 11 was rejected.
2. No interference with the Trial Court’s order dated 19.11.2022 on I.A. No. 12.
3. Directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit (O.S. No. 304/2018) as expeditiously as possible. The parties were directed to co-operate for early disposal.
4. Disposed of all pending interlocutory applications with no order as to costs.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Interim Relief Requires Thorough Enquiry

• Courts must conduct a detailed enquiry into ownership, agreements, and financial claims before granting interim relief in partition suits.
• Mere assertions by a party cannot suffice for directing deposit of rent, profits, or other financial relief.
• Interim orders must not prejudge substantive issues, such as entitlement to mesne profits or ownership disputes.

Trial Courts Must Assign Reasons for Orders

• Every judicial order, including interim orders, must contain clear reasoning. Orders passed without reasons are impermissible and liable to be set aside.
• Practitioners should challenge mechanically passed orders that lack reasoning, as they violate principles of natural justice.

Expeditious Disposal of Long-Pending Suits

• The judgment highlights the delays caused by multiple interlocutory applications in civil suits. Practitioners should:

  • Avoid filing unnecessary applications that stall the main suit.
  • Co-operate with courts to ensure timely disposal of long-pending matters.
  • Seek case management directions from courts to avoid prolonged litigation.

• Courts are now mandated to dispose of partition suits expeditiously, and parties must co-operate to facilitate early resolution.