JUDGMENT : This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against order dated 19.8.2017 in O.S. No. 25943/2016 on the file of IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru. 2. Heard Shri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, Shri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2, Shri S.V. Giridhar, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 and Shri R. Muralidara, learned Counsel for respondents No.4 and 5. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status before Trial Court. 4. Plaintiff filed instant suit praying inter alia for a judgment and decree directing partition of suit schedule property and separate possession of her 1/6th share and cancellation of partition deed dated 4.9.2014. 5. Brief facts of the case discernable from the plaint are, plaintiff’s father, G. Nagappa died intestate on 23.10.2013, leaving behind his wife, four daughters and a son. First defendant is plaintiff’s brother, second defendant her mother, and defendants No.3 to 5 her sisters. All family members had reposed trust in the first defendant. On 3.9.2014, first defendant had promised and assured 1/6th share to all members of the family. On 4.9.2014, first defendant abruptly informed plaintiff to go over to Sub-Registrar’s office at Bommanahalli, Bangalore Urban District, and to execute the partition deed. All formalities of execution were hurriedly done without providing a copy of the partition deed. After obtaining a certified copy, plaintiff was shocked to learn that partition was unequal and therefore, she filed the instant suit. 6. In the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.2/2016 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 5 from alienating suit schedule property or entering into any transaction pending disposal of the suit. An ex parte ‘status quo’ order was granted. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed I.A.3/2017 and defendant No.3 filed I.A.4/2017 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC to vacate the status quo order. By the order impugned, the learned trial Judge has vacated the status quo order and rejected plaintiff’s I.A.2/2016 for temporary injunction. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has presented this appeal. 7. Shri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submitted that a plain reading of the partition deed shows that the partition is unequal. By the order impugned, the learned trial Judge has vacated the status quo order and rejected plaintiff’s I.A.2/2016 for temporary injunction. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has presented this appeal. 7. Shri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submitted that a plain reading of the partition deed shows that the partition is unequal. He pointed out that it is specifically recorded in the partition deed that immovable property bearing No.961/483/413/338/65/2A situated in Agara, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 196’ x 100’ has fallen to the exclusive share of the first defendant with a rider that in the event the said property were to be developed, plaintiff and other defendants would be entitled for a residential flat each measuring 1200 sq.ft. or commercial space of equal dimension, as the case may be. Therefore, the terms contained in the partition deed are in breach of plaintiff’s trust reposed upon the first defendant. Learned trial Judge, without proper appreciation of facts, has vacated the status quo order and dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Accordingly, he prayed that pending disposal of suit, plaintiff’s interest be protected by allowing this appeal. 8. Shri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Advocate for defendants No.1 and 2, opposing the appeal, vehemently contended that plaintiff has suppressed material facts. Adverting to exchange of e-mails between plaintiff, her husband and first defendant, he submitted that on 25.7.2014, first defendant sent a draft partition deed to plaintiff’s husband who returned the same on 27.8.2014 seeking specific amendments. After approval of draft by all parties, partition deed was executed on 4.9.2014. The plaintiff has acted upon the partition deed which is evidenced by several e-mails sent by her husband on 6.9.2014, 12.9.2014, 14.9.2014, 21.9.2014 and 17.3.2015. He also pointed out that plaintiff’s husband has marked copies of all e-mails to the first defendant. Therefore, plaintiff had full knowledge of every event leading to execution of partition deed and subsequent acts. Supporting the impugned order, he submitted that the learned trial Judge has discussed every minute aspect including the e-mails and rightly dismissed the I.A. filed by plaintiff for temporary injunction. 9. Learned Advocates for other defendants also argued for dismissal of appeal. 10. I have carefully considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. Supporting the impugned order, he submitted that the learned trial Judge has discussed every minute aspect including the e-mails and rightly dismissed the I.A. filed by plaintiff for temporary injunction. 9. Learned Advocates for other defendants also argued for dismissal of appeal. 10. I have carefully considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. Plaintiff has filed instant suit on the premise that first defendant has misused her trust and got the partition deed executed to his advantage without even providing a copy of the same. 12. E-mail dated 25.7.2014 sent by first defendant to plaintiff’s husband also contains two attachments named ‘ANA Partition.docx’ and ‘ana.docx’. E-mail dated 27.8.2014 sent by plaintiff’s husband to first defendant is significant and reads as follows: “Gmail Patrician (sic partition deed) 2 messages Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:14 PM Umesha govindappa<umeshagovindappa@gmail.com> To:anand nagappa <toanandnag@gmail.com> Cc:N Pushpa pushpan.hsr@gmail.com> Dear Anand, Referring to this afternoon’s discussion with your elder sister (Ms. Pushpavathi N.), please find the updated patrician (sic partition) deed. Gist of changes: (1) Geetha amount is changed from 40 to 50L (2) party no 2 to 5 one core to 50Lakh (3) sole owner ship to you Kindly confirm the registration of this deed to all on or before 30.08.2014. Thanking you Umesha G” 13. A careful perusal of above e-mail shows that significant amendments were suggested by plaintiff’s husband on 27.8.2014 which include increasing amount payable to defendant No.5 from Rs.40 lakhs to Rs.50 lakhs and reducing amounts payable to party No.2 to 5 from Rs.One crore to Rs.50 lakhs. 14. Admittedly, partition deed was executed on 4.9.2014. On 6.9.2014, plaintiff’s husband has sought for family tree signed by the Village Accountant from first defendant on the ground that the same was required to be submitted to the bank. Though there are other correspondences, e-mail dated 17.3.2015 is significant and it reads as follows: “Gmail Reimbursement 4 messages Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9.38 PM Umesha govindappa<umeshagovindappa@gmail.com> To:anand nagappa <toanandnag@gmail.com> Cc:N Pushpa pushpan.hsr@gmail.com> Dear brother Anand Referring to our meeting at your house (HSR Layout Sector 2, Bangalore-560102) on 02.04.2015 to pay 12.0 lach as per agreement between Pushpavathi. N & Anand. N dated 04.9.2014. As you have promised to pay within a month from the date of Axis Bank cheque. N & Anand. N dated 04.9.2014. As you have promised to pay within a month from the date of Axis Bank cheque. We have made number of request to you in personally as well as through SMS from mobile 9900481853, every time you promise to pay within a week, please refer your SMS confirmation from mobile 9986104191. Now you have agreed to pay full amount on or before 02.04.2015. Our family need your support, we have huge commitment meet our family requirement. Please do not put our family in trouble this time. Kindly please honor your commitment this time without giving any reason. Best Regards, Pushpavthi N. Umesha G” 15. In the face of above exchange of correspondence, the plaintiff has averred in the plaint as follows: “16. The Plaintiff submits that during the month of August 2014, the 1st Defendant informed the Plaintiff and the Defendants No.2 to 5 that he was preparing a Partition Deed and he will provide and allot their respective shares in the Partition Deed. He promised and assured that 1/6th share of the Plaint Schedule Properties will be allotted to the Plaintiff and Defendants No.2 to 5 each on the night of 03.09.2014. The 1st Defendant, in order to knock away and swallow the properties clandestinely and fraudulently drafted the Partition Deed suppressing the true fact and without disclosing the share allotted to the Plaintiff and Defendants. The 1st Defendant abruptly informed the Plaintiff to come to the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Bomanahalli, Bangalore Urban District to sign the Partition Deed. The Plaintiff and her husband requested him to provide a copy of the draft Partition Deed for verification. The 1st Defendant told that he has made arrangement for typing the Partition Deed. It is not yet ready. He informed that he will provide the draft at the Sub-Registrar’s Office at 10 AM on 04.09.2014 before signing the same. On 04.09.2014 at 10 AM she went to the Sub-Registrar’s Office. He told the Plaintiff and Defendants No.2 to 5 to sign the Partition Deed as the matter is very urgent and it has to be submitted before the Sub-Registrar for his verification and meanwhile he would provide copy of the Partition Deed. It is for that reason the Plaintiff and the other Defendants signed the Partition Deed and other forms. He told the Plaintiff and Defendants No.2 to 5 to sign the Partition Deed as the matter is very urgent and it has to be submitted before the Sub-Registrar for his verification and meanwhile he would provide copy of the Partition Deed. It is for that reason the Plaintiff and the other Defendants signed the Partition Deed and other forms. Later when asked, the 1st Defendant told that due to urgency and in a hurry he could not take copies of the Partition Deed and assured not to worry about them. He further assured them that he will provide certified copy of the Partition Deed which will be given along with the Partition Deed itself. The matter went on till the 5 PM and the Partition Deed was registered, but the 1st Defendant did not provide copy of the Partition Deed. The 1st Defendant assured to bring the copies in the night, but he did not give the same to her. Later she requested Defendant No.1 several times to furnish the copy of the Partition Deed. He went on delaying and dragging to furnish the copy of the partition deed on false pretexts. Then the Plaintiff was constrained to obtain the certified copy of the said Partition Deed and learnt the contents of the Partition Deed. The Plaintiff was shocked and surprised to know as to how the partition of the properties was effected which was one sided. The Defendant No.1 has played fraud on the Plaintiff and the other Defendants. He has not properly and correctly allotted shares to the Plaintiff and Defendants No.2 to 5. He has misguided the Plaintiff and other Defendants and fraudulently obtained the signatures of the Plaintiff and Defendants No.2 to 5 and got registered the Partition Deed as dated 04.09.2014 bearing No.BMH-1-04019-2014-15, CD No.DMHD682, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bomanahalli, Bangalore. The Defendant No.1 has not only failed to allot proper and equal shares to the Plaintiff and Defendants No.2 to 5 and also allotted properties which are not available for partition. It is seen that the Defendant No.1 got allotted to his share more than half properties, i.e. properties described in Schedule-1 in the Partition Deed. It is seen from the said schedule that he has obtained the major share of properties. It is seen that the Defendant No.1 got allotted to his share more than half properties, i.e. properties described in Schedule-1 in the Partition Deed. It is seen from the said schedule that he has obtained the major share of properties. One such property is bearing Sy.No.65/2A situated at Agra Village, Begur Hobli measuring 18 guntas which is equal to 196 feet x 100 feet, totally measuring 19600 sq. ft. Apart from that he got allotted the second property site bearing No.769, Sector-II, HSR Layout, Bangalore measuring 40 feet x 60 feet for himself. He further got allotted for himself a third property bearing Site No.770, Sector-II, HSR Layout, Bangalore measuring 40 feet x 60 feet.” (Emphasis Supplied) 16. Learned trial Judge has also adverted to the e-mails. The veracity of ‘e-mails’ content is not disputed by the plaintiff. A careful perusal of e-mails in chronological order leads to an irresistible inference that the draft partition deed was circulated among plaintiff, her husband, first defendant and others. Particularly, e-mail dated 27.8.2014 extracted supra makes it abundantly clear that plaintiff conveyed significant changes to be made in the partition deed. E-mail dated 17.3.2015 sent by plaintiff’s husband shows that plaintiff has acted upon the partition deed. 17. Learned Trial Judge has recorded elaborate reasons after discussing the contentions urged on behalf of the parties and recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case. The learned Trial Judge has further held the plaintiff has filed to establish that the balance of convenience lies in her favour nor would she be put to irreparable injury, if temporary injunction is not granted in her favour. 18. Shri Udaya Holla, also pointed out from the recitals contained in the partition deed that plaintiff’s father, during his life time, has gifted her a site bearing No.1394 situated in Sector-II, HSR Layout, Bengaluru. 19. Shri Udaya Holla, urged that none of the three essential aspects namely ‘prima facie’ case, ‘balance of convenience’ and ‘irreparable injury’ are in plaintiff’s favour. To buttress his contention, he placed reliance on the following passage from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Makers Development Services Private Limited Vs. M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre reported in (2012)1 SCC 735 , and it reads as follows: “11. To buttress his contention, he placed reliance on the following passage from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Makers Development Services Private Limited Vs. M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre reported in (2012)1 SCC 735 , and it reads as follows: “11. It is settled law that while passing an interim order of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court is required to consider three basic principles, namely, (a) prima facie case, (b) balance of convenience and inconvenience, and (c) irreparable loss and injury. In addition to the abovementioned three basic principles, a court, while granting injunction must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties.” 20. It is settled that the appellate Court shall not ordinarily reverse the findings recorded and conclusions arrived at by the trial Court unless the same are demonstrably arbitrary, capricious or perverse. 21. Incontrovertible facts recorded hereinabove clearly demonstrate that, plaintiff was in full knowledge of all sequential developments leading to execution of partition deed. 22. In view of the above discussion, I see no error in the order passed by the learned trial Judge in dismissing I.A.2/2016 for temporary injunction. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. It is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not come in the way of final judgment to be passed in the original suit. In view of disposal of appeal, I.A.No.1/2017 filed for temporary injunction does not survive for consideration and it stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed. No costs.