Dismissed¶¶40

Smt. Prema v. P. Shivananda @ Ananda

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2025RSA/2144/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Subsequent sale of suit schedule property during pendency of regular second appeal renders the appeal redundant/moot — appellant ceases to be owner, cause of action does not survive; appeal dismissed with liberty reserved to the purchaser to institute appropriate proceedings. Background: suit O.S.No.79/2009 (Nanjangud) for permanent injunction decreed by Trial Court (13.07.2015); reversed in R.A.No.40/2015 (26.10.2016); RSA under Sec. 100 CPC. Keywords: permanent injunction; alienation of suit property during appeal; loss of ownership; cause of action ceases; purchaser's liberty to sue; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Nanjangud; 2025; KHC.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as redundant; liberty reserved to the purchaser of the suit schedule property to file an appropriate case before the appropriate forum. ¶¶40

Smt. Prema Vs P. Shivananda @ Ananda — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as redundant; liberty reserved to the purchaser of the suit schedule property to file an appropriate case before the appropriate forum.

¶¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the Regular Second Appeal survives for consideration where, during its pendency, the appellant has sold the suit schedule property and thereby ceased to be its owner, so that the cause of action no longer survives.

¶¶37

Court's answer

The appellant, having sold the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 20.01.2025 during the pendency of the appeal, is no longer the owner of the suit schedule property and the cause of action does not survive for consideration.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

In view of the subsequent development (sale of the suit schedule property), the appeal had become redundant.

¶¶38

Key takeaways

On that basis, the appeal is dismissed.ratio¶¶40
Liberty is reserved in favour of the purchaser of the suit schedule property to file an appropriate case before the appropriate forum.ratio¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru (NC: 2025:KHC:9040), RSA No. 2144 of 2016 (INJ), decided 03.03.2025 by Ashok S. Kinagi, J. — Regular Second Appeal under Sec. 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2016 in R.A.No.40/2015 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud), whereby the defendant's appeal was allowed and the Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 13.07.2015 in O.S.No.79/2009 — a suit for permanent injunction brought by the plaintiff/appellant, which the Trial Court had decreed — were set aside and the suit dismissed. During the pendency of the second appeal, the appellant sold the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 20.01.2025 in favour of Nanjundaiah and Shivananjaih (disclosed through a memo filed by the respondent's counsel). The Court held that the appellant was no longer the owner of the suit schedule property, that the cause of action did not survive for consideration, and that the appeal had become redundant. Appeal dismissed, with liberty reserved to the purchaser of the suit schedule property to file an appropriate case before the appropriate forum.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9040 RSA No. 2144 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2144 OF 2016 (INJ)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. PREMA W/O. MAHADEVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 325, 14^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, GOKULUM, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSORE 570 001.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER NOEL A., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

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

¶11

P. SHIVANANDA @ ANANDA S/O. PUTTASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT TOREMAVU VILLAGE, CHIKKAIAHNA CHATRA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK 571 301.

¶12

MAHADEVA

¶13

S/O. PUTTASWAMAIAH, DEAD BY LRS.,

¶14

SAVITHRAMMA, W/O. LATE MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9040 RSA No. 2144 of 2016

¶16

T. M. VISHNUMURTHY S/O. LATE MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶17

T.M. RAVIPRASAD S/O. LATE MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶18

T. M. PRATHAPA S/O. LATE MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶19

ALL ARE R/AT HARIJAN STREET, THORAMAVU VILLAGE, CHATHRA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK - 571301.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. P MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)

¶22

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.10.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.40/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., NANJANGUD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.07.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.79/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL., CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., NANJANGUDU.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9040 RSA No. 2144 of 2016

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent filed a memo

¶28

along with the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 20.01.2025 which discloses that the appellant has sold the suit schedule property in favour of Nanjundaiah and Shivananjaih.

¶29

Memo is placed on record.

¶30

Admittedly, the suit is one for permanent

¶31

injunction. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court.

¶32

The defendant aggrieved by the judgment and

¶33

decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.79/2009 preferred appeal in R.A.No.40/2015 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant.

¶34

The plaintiff/appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.40/2015 filed this Regular Second Appeal.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9040 RSA No. 2144 of 2016

¶36

During the pendency of the present appeal, the

¶37

appellant have sold the property under registered sale deed dated 20.01.2025 in favour of Nanjundaiah and Shivananjaih. As on today the appellant is not the owner of the suit schedule property and cause of action does not survive for consideration.

¶38