Second appeal against decree for permanent injunction. Both defendants died during pendency of proceedings; the court held that in a suit for injunction simpliciter the right to sue does not survive death, so the suit abated and dismissed the appeal at admission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 893 OF 2019 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI.SIDDAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT G.MADAPURA VILLAGE, GARJE POST, YAGATI HOBLI, KADUR TALUK-577 548. CHIMMAMAGALURU DT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.N.UMASHANKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka
M.MARALUSIDDAPPA S/O LATE ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT G.MADAPURA VILLAGE, GARJE POST, YAGATI HOBLI-577 548, KADUR TALUK, CHIMMAMAGALURU DT.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHIVANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.NATARAJU., ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
NC: 2024:KHC:50175 RSA No. 893 of 2019
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.M.N.Umashankar., counsel for the appellant and Sri.Shivananda., counsel on behalf of Sri.P.Nataraju., for the respondent have appeared in person.
NC: 2024:KHC:50175 RSA No. 893 of 2019
dated 01.02.2019 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. Hence, the present Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC.
The oral submission about the death of the second defendant is placed on record.
It is pivotal to note that 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 (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.
In the present case, the first defendant Marulasiddappa died during the pendency of the First Appeal and the second defendant Siddappa has died during the pendency of the present appeal. Hence, the suit itself abates. No substantial questions of law arises for consideration.
dismissed at the stage of admission.
Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE
TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal survives where both defendants died during the pendency of the suit and appeal in a permanent injunction suit.
Whether any substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Siddappa S/o Mahadevappa
M. Marulasiddappa S/o late Eranna
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
