JUDGMENT : C.M. POONACHA, J. The present appeal is filed by the plaintiff under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , [Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] challenging the order dated 19.03.2025 passed on IA No.19 in O.S.No.6314/2017 on the file of the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-63) , [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’] , whereunder IA.No.19 filed by the appellant/plaintiff to restrain defendant Nos.3 to 5 from putting up construction/changing the nature of the suit schedule item No.1 property and/or creating any third party rights, has been rejected. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a suit in OS No.6314/2017 for grant of 1/4 th share in the suit properties as also to hold the Gift Deed dated 16.11.2012 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3, Gift Deed dated 8.2.2013 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4, Gift Deeds dated 15.7.2013 and 23.1.2017 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.5 and Release Deed dated 18.1.2017 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3, are not binding on the share of the plaintiff. 3. Plaintiff, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of defendant Nos.1 and 4. Defendant No.5 is the wife of defendant No.3. Defendant No.1/father of the plaintiff entered appearance in the suit and filed his written statement contesting the suit. Defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 have adopted the written statement of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 has filed a separate written statement and made a counter claim claiming 1/4 th share in the suit properties. 4. When the suit was posted for evidence, the plaintiff filed IA.No.19 to restrain defendant Nos.3 to 5 from putting up construction, changing the nature and character and or creating third party interest on item No.1 of suit properties. The said application was opposed by defendant No.3 by filing statement of objections. The Trial Court vide order dated 19.3.2025 dismissed IA.No.19. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff. 5. Smt.B.G.Nayanatara, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff assailing the order passed by the Trial Court contends that the Trial Court rejected IA.No.19 solely on the ground of res judicata. It is further contended that res judicata is inapplicable to interim applications. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff. 5. Smt.B.G.Nayanatara, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff assailing the order passed by the Trial Court contends that the Trial Court rejected IA.No.19 solely on the ground of res judicata. It is further contended that res judicata is inapplicable to interim applications. It is also contended that defendant No.1 died in the year 2020 and even if item No.1 of the suit properties is construed as self-acquired property of defendant No.1, having regard to the fact that the plaintiff has sought suitable reliefs with regard to the Gift Deeds and Release Deed executed by defendant No.1, the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application. It is further contended that the circumstances under which the Gift Deeds and Release Deed have been executed have been in detail averred in the plaint and the plaintiff has sought suitable relief/s in that regard. It is further contended that with regard to the fact that the plaintiff was defendant No.2 in OS No.4222/2012 and the plaintiff having filed a memo in the said suit adopting the stand taken by the father, the circumstances with regard to said aspect of the matter has also been averred in detail in the plaint. That since defendant Nos.3 to 5 are putting up construction in a portion of suit item No.1 property on the basis of the alleged Gift Deed and Release Deed, IA.No.19 has been filed, the relief of which ought to be granted by the Trial Court. 6. Per contra, Sri M.S.Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.2/defendant No.3 contends that the Trial Court has rightly rejected IA.No.19 filed by the plaintiff by noticing that the plaintiff who has been arrayed as defendant No.2 in OS No.4222/2012 had filed a memo adopting the stand taken by her father who was defendant No.1 in the said suit. That the suit properties were the self acquired properties of defendant No.1/father. Hence, it is not open to the plaintiff to once again contend in the present suit that item No.1 of the suit property is the joint family property of the father. It is further contended that defendant No.1/father was gainfully employed and out of his own income he had purchased item No.1 of the suit properties vide registered Sale Deed dated 20.3.1978 for a total sale consideration of `39,000/-. It is further contended that defendant No.1/father was gainfully employed and out of his own income he had purchased item No.1 of the suit properties vide registered Sale Deed dated 20.3.1978 for a total sale consideration of `39,000/-. That the Sale Deeds dated 25.1.1978 and 27.1.1978 under which the properties were sold by the father of defendant No.1 were for a consideration of `2,500/- which is insufficient to pay the sale consideration in the Sale Deed dated 20.3.1978. Hence, it is contended that although the said Sale Deed proximate in time, it is clear that the sale consideration was paid only by defendant No.1 out of his own earnings. It is further contended that defendant No.2 had filed OS No.4222/2012 for similar relief as sought in the present suit filed by the plaintiff, which suit was dismissed as settled out of Court. It is further contended defendant No.2 along with his wife and children again filed OS No.25023/2020 for similar reliefs, which is pending adjudication. It is also contended that the Trial Court in OS No.25023/2020 has rightly rejected the applications for injunction, which has been affirmed by this Court in MFA No.1981/2024. That IA.No.1 filed by the plaintiff in the present suit to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit properties has been rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 22.7.2022 and the said order has not been challenged by the plaintiff. Hence, it is contended that the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff, which order ought not to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. 7. Both the learned counsels have relied upon various judgments, which shall be considered during the course of this order to the extent that the same are necessary for adjudication of the issue that arises for consideration. 8. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record has been perused. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting IA.No.19 filed by the plaintiff. 9. The relationship between the parties is undisputed.The plaintiff has filed OS No.6314/2017 seeking 1/4 th share in the suit schedule Item Nos.1 to 3 properties and also seeking for a relief that she is not bound by the Gift Deeds dated 16.11.2012, 8.2.2013, 15.7.2013, 23.1.2017 and Release Deed dated 18.1.2017. 9. The relationship between the parties is undisputed.The plaintiff has filed OS No.6314/2017 seeking 1/4 th share in the suit schedule Item Nos.1 to 3 properties and also seeking for a relief that she is not bound by the Gift Deeds dated 16.11.2012, 8.2.2013, 15.7.2013, 23.1.2017 and Release Deed dated 18.1.2017. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties are the joint family properties of defendant No.1 and that defendant No.1 had purchased the same by utilizing the sale consideration received under the Sale Deeds dated 25.1.1978 and 27.1.1978, whereunder the father of defendant No.1 had sold two landed properties in Turuvekere Taluk, Tumakuru District. Defendant No.1 in the written statement has specifically contended that the sale consideration received from out of the sale of the properties in Turuvekere was not utilized by him for purchase of item No.1 of the suit properties vide registered Sale Deed dated 20.3.1978. It was contended by defendant No.1 that he joined employment at Hindustan Machine Tools during the year 1963-64, retired in the year 1995 and that out of his salary he had purchased the suit properties. 10. At para 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that defendant Nos.1 to 5 had formed 28 residential sites in a portion of item No.1 of the suit properties and 17 sites have been sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 34. It is further averred that in western portion of item No.1 of the suit properties out of 36 sites that have been formed, 12 sites have been sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 34. 11. The plaintiff had filed IA.No.1 to restrain the defendants or their agents from alienating the suit schedule item Nos.1 to 3 properties. The Trial Court vide order dated 22.7.2022 dismissed the said application, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff has not placed any document to demonstrate that suit properties were purchased by defendant No.1 out of the income of the property owned by the father of defendant No.1/Shivananjappa. The Trial Court had further recorded a finding that the plaintiff has not established her contention that defendant Nos.6 to 34 ought not to sell the suit properties. 12. The Trial Court had further recorded a finding that the plaintiff has not established her contention that defendant Nos.6 to 34 ought not to sell the suit properties. 12. In the course of submissions, learned counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on copies of the statement of defendant No.1 made in proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub Division, Bengaluru, whereunder defendant No.1 had filed an affidavit that he purchased item No.1 of the suit properties after selling the ancestral properties. It is contended that the said statements have been marked as Exs.P10 and P11 before the Trial Court in the course of evidence. 13. It is forthcoming from the objections filed by respondent No.2 that defendant No.2 had filed OS No.4222/2012, whereunder the plaintiff was arrayed as defendant No.2. In the said suit, defendant No.2 had sought for 1/4 th share in the suit properties and item Nos. 1 to 3 were also suit properties in the said suit. The written statement filed by his father who was arrayed as defendant No.1 in the said suit has also been placed on record, whereunder defendant No.1/father had specifically contended that the suit properties are his self acquired properties. A copy of the order dated 6.4.2013 passed on IA.No.1 in OS No.4222/2012 has also been placed on record, whereunder the application filed by the plaintiff in the said suit to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit properties was rejected by the Trial Court, inter alia, by recording a prima facie finding that the suit properties are the self acquired properties of defendant No.1/father. A copy of the memo dated 27.1.2016 has been placed on record, whereunder the suit in OS No.4222/2012 has been sought to be dismissed as withdrawn by stating that the dispute between the parties is amicably settled out of Court. A copy of the order dated 12.7.2024 passed in MFA No.1981/2024 is also placed on record, whereunder respondent No.2, his wife and children have filed the appeal before this Court calling in question the dismissal of IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2020 and IA.Nos.1 and 5 of 2024 filed in the said suit. It is forthcoming that this Court vide the said order dated 12.7.2024 dismissed the appeal and refused to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. 14. It is forthcoming that this Court vide the said order dated 12.7.2024 dismissed the appeal and refused to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. 14. It is relevant to note that the plaintiff has filed IA.No.19 to restrain defendant Nos.1 to 5 from putting up construction and/or changing the nature or character of suit item No.1 property or creating any third party rights. It is deposed in the affidavit accompanying the application that during the pendency of the suit, in July 2024, defendant No.3 started cutting trees in a portion of the suit item No.1 property and that he has raised a foundation. That the plaintiff learnt that he was putting up construction of a building in the suit properties. Copies of photographs have also been produced along with IA.No.19 evidencing the fact that construction is being put up. 15. Defendant No.3 in the objections filed to IA.No.19 has specifically asserted that the interim applications having been rejected in OS No.4222/2012 and OS No.25023/2020, the relief sought for in IA.No.19 is also not liable to be granted. It is further contended that the plaintiff, in another suit having adopted the case of the father i.e., defendant No.1 that the suit properties were the self acquired properties of the father, it is not open to the plaintiff to now claim that the suit properties are the joint family properties. 16. It is forthcoming from the aforementioned that defendant No.1 has executed a Gift Deed dated 16.11.2012 and Release Deed dated 18.1.2017 in favour of defendant No.3. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that defendant No.1 suffered from a paralytic stroke in the year 2012 and he became physically infirm and that defendant No.3 has taken over the management of the properties. The plaintiff has in detail averred as to how the documents executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 are not binding on the share of the plaintiff. 17. From the aforementioned, it is clear that even if the suit item No.1 property is construed as the self-acquired properties of defendant No.1, if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit to the extent of demonstrating that she is not bound by the Gift Deed and the Release Deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3, then she is entitled to a share in the suit properties. Further, with regard to the contention of the defendant No.3 that the plaintiff had adopted the stand taken by defendant No.1/father in OS No.4222/2012, it is forthcoming that the plaintiff has in detail averred at para 7 in the plaint with regard to the circumstances of her appearance in the said suit in OS No.4222/2012. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prahlad Singh v. Sukhdev Singh , [ (1987) 1 SCC 727 ] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a question as to whether the principles of res judicata would apply between two stages in the same litigation. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “……………… That the decision given by a Court at an earlier stage of a case is binding at a later stage is well settled, though interlocutory judgments are open for adjudication by an appellate authority in an appeal against the final judgment. In Satyadhyan Ghosal v Deorajin Debi1, this Court said: The principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a court, whether a trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to re- agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. It was however clarified that it did not mean that because at an earlier stage of the litigation a Court has decided an interlocutory matter in one way and no appeal has been taken therefrom or no appeal did lie, a higher court cannot at a later stage of the same litigation consider the matter again. We are not also concerned here with orders of an interlocutory nature such as orders granting temporary injunction, appointing receiver etc. which do not purport to decide the rights of the parties finally. In the present case, in the proceeding to set aside an ex-parte order, the Court recorded an express finding that the landlord had agreed to withdraw the suit and receive the rent from the tenant. That was a finding which was binding on the landlord at later stages of the proceeding. He could have questioned the finding before the appellate authority and the High Court, in the appeals preferred by the tenant. That was a finding which was binding on the landlord at later stages of the proceeding. He could have questioned the finding before the appellate authority and the High Court, in the appeals preferred by the tenant. He did not choose to do so. Infact he could not do so as he had earlier thought it prudent not to enter the witness box though he put the question in issue in the proceeding to set aside the ex-parte order by contesting the statement of the tenant. In the circumstances we allow the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and subordinate tribunals and dismiss the petition for eviction.” (emphasis supplied) 19. Learned counsel for the appellant also places reliance on the judgment of a coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rakesh Madan & & Anr., v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Ors., [2009 SCC OnLine 39] , wherein it was held as follows: “ 26 . Next question which arises is as to whether this Court is precluded from entertaining the second application owing to the appeal having been preferred and dismissed; whether the doctrine of merger comes in the way of this Court exercising the power. While there can be no doubt that the order of this Court dismissing the first application has merged in the order of the Appellate Court, but in my view, a second application on the grounds culled out above would still not lie before the Appellate Court but would lie before this Court only. Firstly, as aforesaid Order, 39 Rule 4 of the CPC is expressly empowering the Court which granted the injunction. There can be cases where the proceedings of interlocutory injunction have gone right till the Court of last resort. The legislature could have provided that the application under Rule 4 would lie only before the Court last dealing with the said matter. However, it is not so provided. There is yet another reason for the same. The whole purpose of providing a hierarchy of appeal is to obviate a human error and provide remedy thereagainst. The purpose is for the Appellate Court to examine the matter brought before it in this perspective. However, it is not so provided. There is yet another reason for the same. The whole purpose of providing a hierarchy of appeal is to obviate a human error and provide remedy thereagainst. The purpose is for the Appellate Court to examine the matter brought before it in this perspective. However, when it has not been examined by the first Court as to whether the injunction is to be granted or vacated owing to change in circumstances or undue hardship, requiring the second application to be filed before the Appellate Court only which had last dealt with the matter would amount to doing away with the provisions of appeal. Unless this court gives reasons for entertaining, allowing, dismissing the application, no appeal there against would be possible.” (emphasis supplied) 20. Learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.2 asserting that the stand taken by the appellant/plaintiff in OS No.4222/2012 would bind her in the present proceedings also and the dismissal of the interim applications in the suits filed by defendant No.2 is also prejudicial to the case of the plaintiff in the present suit, relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.Mahiboobbi v. Govind , [LAWS (KAR)-2017-2-83/KLJ 2017 (3) 230] . Contending that individual/separate properties devolves on the heirs as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which would not be joint family property and hence, the children will not acquire any right by birth in such properties, reliance is placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Shakuntala & ors., v. Basavaraj & Ors. , [ILR 2016 KAR 3604] 21. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that IA.No.1 was filed by the plaintiff to restrain all the defendants from alienating the suit properties and the Trial Court by order dated 22.7.2022 has rejected the said application on the ground that no documents were produced to show that suit properties were purchased from the sale consideration of the properties owned by Shivananjappa and there was no ground to restrain defendant Nos.6 to 34 from alienating the suit properties. However, it is relevant to note that vide IA.No.19 the plaintiff has merely sought to restrain defendant Nos.3 to 5 from changing the nature of suit item No.1 property. 22. However, it is relevant to note that vide IA.No.19 the plaintiff has merely sought to restrain defendant Nos.3 to 5 from changing the nature of suit item No.1 property. 22. It is also forthcoming that defendant No.3 in his statement of objections to IA.No.19 has not denied the fact that the construction activities are going on in a portion of item No.1 of the suit properties as averred by the plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of IA.No.19. It is relevant to note that defendant No.1 had formed a layout in a portion of item No.1 of the suit properties and sold several sites to defendant Nos.6 to 34. However, the relief in IA.No.19 is sought in respect of the property that was owned by defendant No.3, the same having been alienated by defendant No.1 in his favour and construction was sought to be put up in a portion of the suit item No.1 property. 23. Consequent to the death of defendant No.1 even if the stand of defendant No.3 that suit properties are the absolute properties of defendant No.1 is upheld, if the plaintiff were to succeed in the relief that she is not bound by the Gift Deed dated 16.11.2012 and Release Deed dated 18.1.2017 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 then, she would be entitled to a share in the suit item No.1 property. 24. Suffice to note that at the present stage, evidence is being adduced in the suit and even if it is construed to be a self acquired property of defendant No.1, having regard to the other reliefs sought for by the plaintiff in the plaint that she is not bound by the Gift Deed dated 16.1.2012 and Release Deed dated 18.1.2019 executed by defendant No.1, it is just and proper that till completion of the suit, the interest of the plaintiff to be safe guarded. 25. 25. However, having regard to the fact that the alienations made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 are required to be adjudicated by the Trial Court while adjudicating the matter on merits, it is just and proper that IA.No.19 filed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court be disposed of by holding that any construction made by defendant No.3 would be subject to the result of the suit and defendant No.3 will not be entitled to claim any equities in respect of any counter put up by him. 26. Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered partly in the negative. 27. In view of the aforementioned, IA.No.19 filed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court as well as the present appeal are disposed of by holding that any construction made by defendant No.3 in item No.1 of suit property (which is mentioned in the schedule to IA.No.19) shall be subject to the result of the suit and defendant No.3 will not be entitled to claim any equities in respect of the counter put up. 28. The observations made by the Trial Court while adjudicating IA.No.19 and by this Court while adjudicating the present appeal are only for the purpose of considering IA.No.19 and the Trial Court shall adjudicate upon the suit uninfluenced by the observations made in the said orders.