Karnataka High Court
Sri Rudra Devaru vs Sri V Mohan Kumar on 12 November, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45798
RSA No. 215 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 215 OF 2019 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI RUDRA DEVARU
S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAIAH,
AND LATE BASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT IJOOR EXTENSION,
RAMANAGARA TOWN-571 511.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.R.RAJASHEKARAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI V.MOHAN KUMAR
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S,
1. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O LATE V.MOHAN KUMAR,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: High
Court of Karnataka 2. SRI. AKASH
S/O LATE V.MOHAN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
3. SRI. AKSHAY
S/O LATE V.MOHAN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT 4TH CROSS, IJOOR EXTENSION,
RAMANAGARA TOWN-571 511.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.SUBBA SHASTRY., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45798
RSA No. 215 of 2019
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908,
SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.D.R.Rajashekharappa., counsel for the appellant and
Sri.N.Subba Shastry., counsel for the respondents have
appeared in person.
2. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal
papers with care.
3. The suit giving rise to this appeal was brought by
the plaintiff against V.Mohan Kumar - the sole defendant
seeking the relief of permanent injunction in O.S.No.11/2008
on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara alleging
that the sole defendant is interfering with his peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On the
trial of the action, the Trial Court vide Judgment dated
15.01.2013 dismissed the suit. The plaintiff assailed the
Judgment of the Trial Court before the First Appellate Court.
The First Appellate Court vide Judgment dated 16.07.2018
NC: 2024:KHC:45798
dismissed the appeal. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the
captioned appeal under Section 100 of CPC.
4. Counsel Sri.D.R.Rajashekharappa., in presenting his
arguments submits that the First Appellate Court disposed of
the appeal on 16.07.2018 and the sole defendant died on
07.11.2018. Counsel therefore, submits that an appropriate
order may be passed.
The submission made by counsel for the appellant about
the death of sole defendant V.Mohan Kumar is noted with care.
5. A perusal of the Judgment and Decree of the Court
of facts reveals that the plaintiff has failed to prove the
possession over the suit schedule property and also the alleged
interference by the sole defendant as of the date of filing of the
suit. Furthermore, the sole defendant died on 07.11.2018.
Suffice it to note that the suit is one for permanent
injunction simpliciter. It is unnecessary to the pleadings in
detail. Applying the principles of "actio personalis moritur cum
persona" injunction is a personal remedy against a person, in
particular, the defendant. Therefore, the very prayer itself
makes it clear that it is a restriction against that person
NC: 2024:KHC:45798
(defendant) or his agents or his men or anybody claiming under
him or through him.
This is the usual format in an injunction suit. Once a man
dies, the cause of action dies with him and does not pass on to
the legal representatives. It is perhaps well to observe that in a
suit for permanent injunction simpliciter, where one or two
more defendants die during the pendency of the suit before the
final adjudication of the dispute, the right to sue does not
survive. Hence, the suit itself abates. No substantial questions
of law arises for consideration.
6. Resultantly, the Regular Second Appeal is
dismissed at the stage of admission.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
