C Ramaiah vs Smt R Umadevi
2025 Latest Caselaw 608 Kant

Karnataka High Court

C Ramaiah vs Smt R Umadevi on 2 July, 2025

Author: Jyoti Mulimani

Bench: Jyoti Mulimani

                                            -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:23571
                                                      RFA No. 746 of 2017


                HC-KAR



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                          BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
                       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2017 (INJ)
                BETWEEN:

                1.     C.RAMAIAH
                       S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA,
                       SINCE DEAD BY LR'S

                1(a) SMT. SHARADHA
                     W/O LATE C.RAMAIAH,
                     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

                1(b)   SMT. R.MAHADEVI
                       D/O LATE C.RAMAIAH,
                       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

                1(c)   SRI. R.KRISHNAKUMAR
                       S/O LATE C.RAMAIAH,
                       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R 1(d)   SRI. R.BHARATH KUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF               S/O LATE C.RAMAIAH,
KARNATAKA              AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

                       ARE ALL RESIDING AT
                       NO.386, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD MAIN,
                       7TH CROSS, BSK 3RD STAGE,
                       BANGALORE-560 085.
                                                             APPELLANTS
                (BY SRI. LAKSHMISH.G., ADVOCATE)
                                -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:23571
                                           RFA No. 746 of 2017


HC-KAR



AND:

SMT. R.UMADEVI
W/O LATE M.KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
DOING BUSINESS AT SHOP NO. 108,
C-BLOCK, NEW KALSIPALYA,
WHOLESALE MARKET YARD,
KALASIPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 102.
                                                 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRISH.H., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

       THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF THE CPC.

    THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS
UNDER:


                       ORAL JUDGMENT

Sri.Lakshmish.G., counsel for the appellants has appeared

in person.

There is no representation on behalf of the respondent,

either personally or through video conferencing. As could be

seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on

01.07.2025, on that day, there was no representation on behalf

of the respondent. Hence, for appearance of counsel for the

respondent, it was ordered to be listed on 02.07.2025 and it

was also made clear that if none appears for the respondent on

NC: 2025:KHC:23571

HC-KAR

the next date of hearing, the Court will proceed to pass

appropriate orders.

The appeal is listed today. Today also there is no

representation on behalf of the respondent. Hence, this Court

deems it proper to pass appropriate order on the merits of the

case.

2. This is an appeal from the Court of XX Addl. City

Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-32), Bengaluru City.

3. The plaintiff - Smt.R.Umadevi filed a suit against

the defendant - C.Ramaiah in O.S.No.6258/2013. The Trial

Court vide Judgment and Decree dated:06.04.2017, decreed

the suit. Hence, the defendant has preferred an appeal under

Section 96 of CPC.

4. Sri.Lakshmish.G., counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellant submits that the defendant had filed a suit in

O.S.No.5685/2009 on the file of XVI Addl. City Civil Judge,

Bengaluru (CCH-12) as against the son of the respondent

herein and the same was decreed on 15.12.2012 and it has

attained finality.

NC: 2025:KHC:23571

HC-KAR

The oral submission made by counsel for the appellant is

placed on record.

Counsel further submits that during the pendency of the

present appeal, the original defendant - C.Ramaiah died on

01.05.2019.

5. The suit is filed for a permanent injunction

simpliciter. It is unnecessary to refer to pleadings in detail.

6. An injunction is in its nature a remedy against an

individual, it will be issued only in respect of acts done by him

against whom it is sought to be enforced. An injunction is a

personal remedy and it does not run with the land. Ordinarily a

decree for an injunction can be executed only against the

person against whom the injunction is issued and it cannot be

executed against any other person in the absence of a statutory

provision. The relief of injunction is purely personal.

Applying the principles of "actio personalis mortiur cum

persona", the injunction is a personal remedy against a person,

particularly against the defendant. It is a restriction against the

person i.e., the defendant.

NC: 2025:KHC:23571

HC-KAR

In the present case, the appellant was a sole defendant

before the Trial Court and he dies during the pendency of the

appeal. Once a man dies, the cause of action dies with him and

it does not pass on to the legal representatives. In a suit for

permanent injunction simpliciter, when the sole defendant dies

before the final adjudication of the dispute, the right to sue

does not survive and the cause of action dies.

This Court has taken note of the death of the sole

defendant and concluding that the cause of action does not

survive. Hence, the suit itself abates. Accordingly, the Regular

First Appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP