ORDER : The petitioners-plaintiffs filed the present writ petition against the order dated 02.08.2016 passed by Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C at Sira made in O.S.No.22/2011 partly allowing the application-I.A.No.9 filed by defendants under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the 11th defendant-Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB to disburse the compensation amount awarded in favour of defendants No.1 to 9 in respect of suit schedule properties which was acquired by defendant No.9 measuring 9 Acres 11 guntas. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties contended that all the properties are acquired by the Government in respect of suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 10. Defendants have filed written statement not disputed that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and plaintiffs are the members of joint family. In the meanwhile, 11th respondent-KIADB acquired all agricultural properties i.e. item Nos.1 to 4 to the suit schedule properties totally measuring 9 acres 11 guntas. Now, the matter is posted for arguments, at that stage, the defendants 1 to 9 have filed application-I.A.No.9 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to pass an order directing the 11th defendant-KIADB to disburse the compensation amount awarded in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 9 in respect of suit schedule properties. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs. The trial Court considering the application and objections, by the impugned order dated 02.08.2016 allowed the application-I.A.No.9 filed by the defendants 1 to 9 in part and directed the 11th defendant-KIADB to disburse the amount to an extent of 1/9th each share to the sons of Sannadyamanna and award amount pertaining to the alleged shares of daughters of Sannadyamanna is concerned, the same shall be retained by the 11th defendant till further direction by the trial Court. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis. 4. Sri.R.Rangaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court directing 11th defendant-KIADB to disburse the amount of 1/9th share of the amount to the defendants No.1 to 9 is erroneous and contrary to material on record. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis. 4. Sri.R.Rangaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court directing 11th defendant-KIADB to disburse the amount of 1/9th share of the amount to the defendants No.1 to 9 is erroneous and contrary to material on record. He would further contend that when the main suit itself is for partition and separate possession before division is made by the Court filing of I.A.No.9 to disburse 1/9th shares each to the sons of Sannadyamanna is premature and not maintainable. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition. 5. Sri.Patel D.Karegowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 to 9 sought to justify the impugned order and contended that there is no dispute with regard to members of joint family and that suit schedule properties are joint family properties therefore, trial Court justified in directing the 11th defendant-KIADB to disburse 1/9th share each to the sons of Sannadyamanna. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Sri.Somashekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.B.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.11 fairly submits that suit schedule properties was acquired by KIADB and an award has already been passed in the year 2011 in terms of the direction issued by the Court. The 11th defendant Appellate Authority has to follow the directions. He would fairly submits that till the suit is disposed of on merits, the entire award amount in respect of suit schedule properties by the Land Acquisition Officer would be deposited with the trial Court within four weeks. The said submission is placed on record. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties and joint family members are entitled for share. The defendants filed written statement and have neither disputed the relationship nor joint family properties. After completion of evidence, the matter is posted for arguments, at that stage, the application came to be filed by defendants 1 to 9 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the 11th defendant-KIADB to disbure the compensation award amount in favour of defendants 1 to 9 in respect of suit schedule properties. After completion of evidence, the matter is posted for arguments, at that stage, the application came to be filed by defendants 1 to 9 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the 11th defendant-KIADB to disbure the compensation award amount in favour of defendants 1 to 9 in respect of suit schedule properties. The trial Court proceeded to allow the application-I.A.No.9 in part directing the 11th defendant to disburse the award amount to an extent of 1/9th share each to sons of Sannadyamanna and the award amount pertaining to the alleged shares of daughters of Sannadyamanna is concerned, the same shall be retained with defendant No.11 till further direction by the trial Court. When the main suit itself is for partition and separate possession and before division is made by the Court in accordance with law merely because the defendants filed application for disbursement without determination of the share, the trial Court proceeded to direct the 11th defendant-KIADB to declare 1/9th share each. There is no basis for 1/9th share declared by the trial Court while considering on I.A.No.9 when the main matter is pending. The impugned order passed by the trial Court prima facie is contrary to material on record and cannot be sustained. 8. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.08.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C at Sira made in O.S.No.22/2011 on I.A.No.9 is hereby quashed. The 11th defendant-KIADB is directed to deposit the entire award amount in respect of suit schedule properties before the trial Court within one month from the date of receipt of this order. It would suffice, if the trial court decide the suit as expeditiously not later than six months since the rights of parties are involved. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship. The trial Court is requested to disposed of the suit within outer limit of six months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. The amount to be deposited by KIADB shall be invested in any Nationalized Bank enabling to accrue the interest. In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2018 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 9 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2018 is deposed of.