Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Mr Keshava Gowda Vs Mr Nemanna Gowda — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Mr Keshava Gowda Vs Mr Nemanna GowdaMr Keshava Gowda v. Mr Nemanna Gowda

Dismissed¶41-42

Mr Keshava Gowda v. Mr Nemanna Gowda

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2025RSA/1487/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abatement of appeal and termination of a suit for bare injunction upon the death of the sole defendant; failure to implead legal representatives; cause of action pleaded against the deceased defendant alone; liberty to file a fresh suit against the legal representatives. High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, RSA No. 1487 of 2013 (INJ), NC: 2025:KHC:25040, Justice Ashok S. Kinagi, decided 8 July 2025. Statute cited: S.100 CPC. Precedents: Smt. Bhagwanti v. Kanshi Ram through LRs, ILR 2011 Delhi 444; Usha Gopal Gowda v. M.T. Tharanath, W.P.No.15445/2015 (12.10.2018). Courts below: O.S.No.11/2002 (Prl. Civil Judge Jr.Dn, Puttur, D.K.) and R.A.No.28/2008 (Prl. Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Puttur, D.K.). Parties: Keshava Gowda (appellant) v. Nemanna Gowda (deceased respondent); advocates Cyril Prasad Pais and K Shrihari (Lex Justica).

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the appellant to file a suit against the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, if need arises.

Why is it important?

In view of the death of the respondent, the suit for bare injunction would come to an end. ¶29

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the appellant to file a suit against the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, if need arises.

Issue for consideration

Whether, on the death of the sole respondent in a suit for bare injunction, where the cause of action is alleged only against the deceased defendant and no legal representatives were brought on record, the appeal abates.

Court's answer

In view of the death of the respondent, the suit for bare injunction would come to an end.

Ratio / Principle

Since the cause of action shown in the plaint was against the sole defendant and not against his legal representatives, the appeal abates due to the death of the defendant.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2013 in R.A.No.28/2008 (Prl. Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Puttur, D.K.), which had confirmed the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007 in O.S.No.11/2002 (Prl. Civil Judge Jr.Dn, Puttur, D.K.) — a suit for bare injunction. The sole respondent was reported to have died long back and the appellant did not bring his legal representatives on record. Held: as the cause of action in the plaint was alleged only against the deceased sole defendant and not against his legal representatives, the suit for bare injunction comes to an end and the appeal abates on the defendant's death, relying on Smt. Bhagwanti v. Kanshi Ram (ILR 2011 Delhi 444, Delhi HC) and the coordinate-bench decision in Usha Gopal Gowda v. M.T. Tharanath (W.P.No.15445/2015, decided 12.10.2018). Appeal dismissed as abated, with liberty reserved to the appellant to file a suit against the legal representatives of the deceased respondent if need arises; I.A.No.2/2023 disposed of as not surviving.

A

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25040 RSA No. 1487 of 2013

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1487 OF 2013 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

MR KESHAVA GOWDA S/O VENKAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS LAND OWNER R/AT KAKVE ALANKAR VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK POST ALANKAR 574 201

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

MR NEMANNA GOWDA S/O MR. NAGAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT ALANKAR VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK POST ALANKAR 574 201 DAKSHINA KANNADA

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K SHRIHARI, BY LEX JUSTICA, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 30.3.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.28/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ACJM, PUTTUR, D.K, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25040 RSA No. 1487 of 2013

HC-KAR

CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.11/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) PUTTUR, D.K.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL JUDGMENT

It was reported that sole respondent passed away

long back.

The appellant did not file necessary applications

to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent on record. The suit is for a bare injunction.

From the perusal of the contents of the plaint, it is noticed that the allegation of interference in the plaintiff’s/appellant’s peaceful possession of the suit property, is against the defendant/respondent, who passed away long back. In view of the death of the respondent the suit for bare injunction would come to an end.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25040 RSA No. 1487 of 2013

HC-KAR

The said view is supported by the judgment of

Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Bhagwanti Vs. Sri.

Kanshi Ram through LRs reported in ILR 2011 Delhi

444 .

Further the coordinate bench of this Court,

referring to the judgment of the Delhi High Court, in the case of Usha Gopal Gowda Vs. M.T. Tharanath in W.P.No.15445/2015 , disposed of on 12.10.2018 in paragraph No.12 held that no cause of action is alleged against the legal representative of the defendant and cause of action alleged in the plaint was against the defendant alone, against whom the relief of injunction was sought.

Admittedly, in the instant case, the cause of action shown in the plaint as against the sole defendant and not against the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. Hence, due to cause of death the appeal abates against the defendant.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25040 RSA No. 1487 of 2013

HC-KAR

In view of the same, the appeal is dismissed as

abated.

However, a liberty is reserved to the appellant

to file a suit against the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, if need arises.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2023

does not survive for consideration and accordingly, disposed of.

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

BVK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether, on the death of the sole respondent in a suit for bare injunction, where the cause of action is alleged only against the deceased defendant and no legal representatives were brought on record, the appeal abates.medium confidence¶38
The court held
In view of the death of the respondent, the suit for bare injunction would come to an end.ratio¶29

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Smt. Bhagwanti Vs. Sri. Kanshi Ram through LRsRelied on¶33-35
ILR 2011 Delhi 444 · Who else cites this
Usha Gopal Gowda Vs. M.T. TharanathRelied on¶37
W.P.No.15445/2015

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil ProcedureSection 100¶18

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 30.3.2013 in R.A.No.28/2008 dismissing the first appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007 in O.S.No.11/2002.¶18
Prl. Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Puttur, D.K. · 30.3.2013
Prior proceeding
Trial suit O.S.No.11/2002 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Puttur, D.K.; its judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007 was confirmed by the first appellate court.¶21
Prior proceeding
First appeal R.A.No.28/2008 before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Puttur, D.K., was dismissed on 30.3.2013.¶18
Prior proceeding
It was reported that the sole respondent had passed away long back.¶25-26
Prior proceeding
The appellant did not file applications to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record; the suit was for a bare injunction.¶27-28

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Mr Keshava Gowda S/o Venkappa Gowda¶10
Cyril Prasad Pais
respondent
Mr Nemanna Gowda S/o Mr. Nagappa Gowda¶15
K Shrihari

Coram

AI extract

Ashok S. Kinagiauthor¶23

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 8 Jul 2025 · July
Registered: 12 Sept 2013
Case no.: RSA/1487/2013
CNR: KAHC010533062013
Bench: Ashok S.kinagi
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL (INJ)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Ashok S.kinagi

Sri Nanjappa Vs Smt. Hanumakka
7 Jul 2025
M/S Westbury Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr K Srinivas
7 Jul 2025
Mr Mg Poornachandrathejaswi Vs Mr Shreyas M Patel
7 Jul 2025
Mrs Sunil C Shetty Vs Shyamala S Nayak
8 Jul 2025
Sri K S Shyamasundar Vs Smt Obamma
8 Jul 2025
Shantamma Vs Shylaja
8 Jul 2025

Cite this judgement

Mr Keshava Gowda v. Mr Nemanna Gowda, RSA/1487/2013 (KA), decided on 8 July 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited2

Smt. Bhagwanti Vs. Sri. Kanshi Ram through LRsRelied on¶33-35
Usha Gopal Gowda Vs. M.T. TharanathRelied on¶37

Open Authorities

Statutes1

Code of Civil ProcedureSection 100

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Judgment and decree dated 30.3.2013 in R.A.No.28/2008 dismissing the first appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007 in O.S.No.11/2002.Prl. Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Puttur, D.K. · 30.3.2013
Trial suit O.S.No.11/2002 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Puttur, D.K.; its judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007 was confirmed by the first appellate court.
First appeal R.A.No.28/2008 before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Puttur, D.K., was dismissed on 30.3.2013.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Ashok S. Kinagi

Parties & counsel