- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31115 RSA No. 1037 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1037 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI APPAIAH S/O KURAPPA AGED 49 YEARS R/AT HASIGALA VILLAGE HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICIT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BASAVANNA M D.,ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: SRI MUNISEETHAPPA S/O LT SHAMANNA AGED 54 YEARS R/AT HASIGALA VILLAGE HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.04.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.69/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.03.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.89/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSAKOTE. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31115 RSA No. 1037 of 2022 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER The sole appellant said to have died on 07.01.2025. 2. None appears for the proposed legal representative of deceased sole appellant. 3. I.A.No.1/2025 seeking to bring the legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant on record has been filed on 25.03.2025. 4. Perused the appeal papers. 5. The suit in O.S.No.89/2007 was one for permanent injunction, which came to be decreed on 16.03.2012. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal. 6. The First Appellate Court upon re-appreciation of the material on record allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of injunction passed in O.S.No.89/2007. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31115 RSA No. 1037 of 2022 7. Since the plaintiff is no more and the decree obtained by the plaintiff was a personal decree, the application seeking impleadment of the legal representatives for the purpose of prosecuting the present appeal does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i) I.A.No.1/2025 filed for bringing the legal representative of deceased sole appellant on record, is rejected. ii) Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed as abated. It is made clear that if any fresh cause of action arises in favour of the proposed legal representatives of deceased sole appellant with regard to the alleged interference by the respondent, the dismissal of the present appeal shall not come in the way of their pursuing fresh action in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE PHM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29