- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10877 RFA No. 1766 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1766 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI.KARTHIK B.T S/O SRI B.M.THONTADARYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.TF-2 (3RD FLOOR) (IDENTIFICATION REAR PORTION) LE-ORCHID APARTMENTS SBI OFFICERS COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560079 REPRESENTED BY POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.K.SHIVA SHANKAR S/O LATE M.N.KARIBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.13, 2ND MAIN SBI COLONY BASAVESHWARNAGAR BENGALURU-560079 …APPELLANT (BY SRI.RAVI H K, ADVOCATE) AND: PATTANATH UNNI (SINCE DEAD BY LRS) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10877 RFA No. 1766 of 2023 1. SMT.NEENA AJITH D/O LATE PUTTANATH UNNI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.GF-1, GF-2, SF-2 'LE-ORCHID' APARTMENTS SBI OFFICERS COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560079 2. SMT.SONA SAHIL D/O LATE PUTTANATH UNNI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.GF-1, GF-2, SF-2 'LE-ORCHID' APARTMENTS SBI OFFICERS COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560079 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ANANTHARAM G.R, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.07.2023 PASSED IN OS.NO.4515/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-5) IN OS.NO.4515/2016, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD IN ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who is primarily aggrieved by the dismissal of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10877 RFA No. 1766 of 2023 suit for injunction simplictor in O.S.No.4515/2016 on the file of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-5) solely on the premise that the sole defendant has died and therefore, the right to prosecute the injunction suit against legal heirs does not survive. The said order is under challenge. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal has placed strong reliance on the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and another vs. Smt.Narasamma and others in RSA No.743/2011. Placing emphasis on the principles laid down therein, he would contend that an order dismissing a suit as abated, without examining whether the right to sue survives, is legally unsustainable and amounts to perversity. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10877 RFA No. 1766 of 2023 According to him, the dispute on hand pertains to a parking slot, which undeniably constitutes immovable property. The right asserted in the suit, therefore, is not a mere personal right but a proprietary right attached to the estate. He would further submit that upon the death of the sole defendant, his legal representatives have stepped into his shoes and have succeeded to his estate and consequently, the cause of action survives against them. Hence, the impugned order dismissing the suit as abated is contrary to settled principles of law and requires interference. 4. Per contra, Sri Anantharam G.R., learned counsel appearing for the defendants, drawing support from the judgments of this Court in Shivananjaiah vs. Kariyappa (since deceased) by LRs., Prakash and others in RSA No.122/2013 and Shivappa Basavantappa Devar (deceased) by LRs. vs. Babajan1, would contend that a suit for bare injunction is essentially personal in nature. 1 1999(4) KAR.L.J.293 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10877 RFA No. 1766 of 2023 According to him, such a relief operates in personam and not in rem. He would argue that where the relief sought is injunction simplicitor against an individual defendant, the cause of action is personal to that defendant. Consequently, upon the death of the sole defendant, the cause of action does not survive and the suit necessarily abates. On this premise, he submits that the learned Trial Judge was justified in dismissing the suit as abated. 5. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the learned Judge was justified in dismissing the suit as abated on the ground that the sole defendant in a suit for bare injunction died during the pendency of the proceedings and that the suit is not maintainable against his legal representatives? (ii) What order? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10877 RFA No. 1766 of 2023 Findings on point No.(i):- 6. Though both learned counsels have advanced elaborate submissions placing reliance on two sets of seemingly conflicting judgments, this Court, during the course of hearing, posed a specific query to Sri.Anantharam G.R., learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. This Court sought clarification as to whether the legal heirs of the original defendant are asserting any right over the suit schedule property namely, the disputed parking slot forming the subject matter of O.S.No.4515/2016 by virtue of inheritance, and whether they represent the estate of the deceased defendant; or, in the alternative, whether they concede the plaintiff’s claim and do not intend to contest the suit. 7. In response to these pointed queries, the learned counsel for the legal heirs fairly submitted that the legal representatives of the original defendant do claim right - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10877 RFA No. 1766 of 2023 over the suit property and assert that they have succeeded to the estate of the deceased, which includes the disputed parking slot. This categorical submission assumes significance while examining the question of abatement. 8. It is no doubt true that in a suit for injunction simpliciter, the maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona” a personal action dies with the person has often been invoked to contend that such actions are personal in nature. However, the application of the said maxim is not absolute and depends upon the nature of the right asserted and the character of the relief sought. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Puran Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others2, had occasion to consider this very issue. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while classifying the categories of cases in which a suit would abate upon the death of a sole defendant, made a clear distinction between purely personal causes of action and those 2 (1996)2 SCC 205 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10877 RFA No. 1766 of 2023 involving proprietary or heritable rights. It was categorically held that where the right asserted against the sole defendant survives and devolves upon his legal representatives, and where such legal representatives represent the estate of the deceased, the right to sue continues and the plaintiff is entitled to prosecute the suit against them. 9. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puran Singh (cited supra), this Court is of the considered view that the law declared therein is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Co-ordinate Bench in Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and another vs. Smt.Narasamma and others (RSA No.743/2011) has relied upon the said authoritative pronouncement. On the other hand, the contrary judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants do not appear to have considered or discussed the binding dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, nor do they refer to any larger Bench decision taking a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10877 RFA No. 1766 of 2023 divergent view. In such circumstances, this Court is bound to follow the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. In the present case, the dispute centers around a parking slot, which constitutes immovable property. The right claimed is not merely personal to the original defendant but relates to possession and enjoyment of immovable property. When the legal heirs themselves assert that they have inherited the estate of the deceased defendant and claim right over the suit property, it necessarily follows that the cause of action survives against them. In such circumstances, the suit cannot be dismissed as abated. The plaintiff is legally entitled to bring the legal representatives of the sole defendant on record under the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and proceed with the adjudication of the dispute on merits. 11. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently emphasized, in a catena of decisions including - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10877 RFA No. 1766 of 2023 Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and another3, that procedural laws are handmaidens of justice. Where relegating a plaintiff to institute a fresh suit would result in multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary delay, courts should adopt an approach that advances substantial justice and permits continuation of the existing proceedings, provided the cause of action survives. 12. In the case on hand, the learned Trial Judge appears to have mechanically applied the provisions relating to abatement under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without adverting to the crucial question as to whether the right to sue survived. The finding that in a suit for bare injunction the legal representatives are not necessary parties and that the cause of action does not survive is clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even on first principles, when the subject matter of the suit is immovable property and the legal heirs assert rights by 3 (2002) 7 SCC 559 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10877 RFA No. 1766 of 2023 inheritance or as members of a joint family, the cause of action cannot be said to perish merely because the original defendant has died. The nature of the dispute being heritable ensures continuity of the lis. 13. The mere fact that the suit was initially instituted against a sole defendant does not preclude the plaintiff from bringing on record those who have succeeded to his estate. If such a rigid view were to be adopted, it would defeat substantive rights and compel unnecessary multiplicity of litigation. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Judge has misapplied the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and has erroneously concluded that the suit stood abated. The impugned order thus suffers from patent illegality and perversity. More so, when the legal representatives were already brought on record and the plaintiff was permitted to proceed with the suit, the Trial Court ought not to have been swayed by - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10877 RFA No. 1766 of 2023 objections regarding maintainability, ignoring the settled legal position. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the "Negative" holding that the learned Judge erred in dismissing the suit as abated. 15. Point No.(ii):- For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The appeal stands allowed. (ii) The order dated 03.07.2023 passed in O.S. No.4515/2016 by the Court of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-5) is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity to both parties. (iv) As the parties are represented by their respective counsel, they shall appear before the Trial Court on 25.03.2026, without awaiting further notice. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10877 RFA No. 1766 of 2023 (v) The Registry is directed to transmit the entire records forthwith to the Trial Court to enable expeditious disposal. (vi) All rival contentions of the parties are kept open for consideration before the Trial Court. (vii) Liberty is reserved to the legal representatives of the deceased defendant to file an additional written statement, if so advised, in accordance with law. (viii) Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7