- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34541 RFA No. 1412 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1412 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MOKSHAYANI W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 2. SRI ANAND KUMAR S/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT BASAVESHWARNAGAR, BENGALURU-560079. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI BALAKRISHNA K., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI PUNITH .B S/O LATE BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5032, PRESTIGE BAGMANE TEMPLE BELLS 3RD FLOOR, HOSAKERE HALLI, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 085. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MARUTI KANNAYYA NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3339/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34541 RFA No. 1412 of 2025 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is preferred by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2024 in O.S.No.3339/2022 on the file of the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-26) (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ for short). By the judgment and decree, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction and restrained the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property without following the due process of law. Aggrieved by which, the defendants are before this Court. 2. The respondent-Punith B., s/o late Balappa has filed an affidavit, the relevant paragraph Nos.9 to 13 culled out as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34541 RFA No. 1412 of 2025 “9. I submit that pursuant to the complaint lodge by the one Sri. Akhil Aadithya, the concerned jurisdictional Police i.e. RR Nagar PS, called me and enquired about the schedule property and recorded my statement and then only I came to know that Muddayya not being the owner of the schedule property have entered in to rental agreement with me. 10. I submit that I have voluntarily assured the jurisdictional police about the vacating the schedule premises and accordingly I have given statement to the jurisdictional Police. Accordingly, I have vacated the suit schedule property. 11. I submit that Sri Muddyya Hiremath being not the owner of the schedule property has created the document and believed me that he is the owner of the property and accordingly I have entered into rental agreement with him. 12. I submit that I have no objection to allow this appeal since I have already vacated the rental premises and handed over the keys to the Appellants herein and the same was also informed to Sri. Muddayya Hiremath and requested him to refund deposit amount a sum of Rs.3,00,000 as per rental agreement at the time of vacating the schedule premises but the Sri. Muddayya Hiremath his not pick - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34541 RFA No. 1412 of 2025 the my phone calls and not available his house and not bother to pay the security deposit amount by me. 13. I further state that, I have vacated rental premises the judgment and decree operating against the Appellant, hence I have no objection to allow this appeal and to set aside the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2024 in O.S.3339/2022 on the file of Xth Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru CCH- 26.” 3. The respondent-plaintiff has categorically stated in his affidavit that he has already vacated the rental premises and handed over possession to the appellants. He further states that he has no objections for allowing the appeal. 4. This affidavit is taken on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the affidavit filed by the respondent, the very decree of Trial Court no longer survives and the appeal deserves to be allowed in terms of the affidavit of the respondent. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34541 RFA No. 1412 of 2025 6. On perusal of the affidavit, the respondent- plaintiff has vacated the rental premises and the decree of permanent injunction granted by the Trial Court loses its efficacy. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 01.10.2024 in O.S. No.3339/2022 on the file of the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-26) is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed as having become infructuous in view of the affidavit filed by the respondent. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65