- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5386 RSA No. 122 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2013 (INJ) BETWEEN: SHIVANANJAIAH S/O NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O KAMPLAPUR VILLAGE, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK – 572 130 TUMKUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.R. SREENIVASA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(A). KARIYAPPA S/O HUTCHAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS PRAKASH S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5386 RSA No. 122 of 2013 R/O KAMPLAPURA VILLAGE HULIYURDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 130 TUMKUR DISTRICT 1(B). SURESH S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O KAMPLAPURA VILLAGE HULIYURDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 130 TUMKUR DISTRICT 1(C). THIMMAMMA W/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O KAMPLAPURA VILLAGE HULIYURDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 130 TUMKUR DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. M GUDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R SRI. RAVIKUMAR B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1( A & B) SRI. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(C)] THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 3.12.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.46/2010 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KUNIGAL, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5386 RSA No. 122 of 2013 JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 3.4.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.433/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC, KUNIGAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2012 passed in RA No.46/2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal (‘First Appellate Court’ for short). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court1. Appellant was the plaintiff and respondents were the legal representatives (‘LRs’ for short) of the defendant. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with his 1 OS No.433/1998 on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5386 RSA No. 122 of 2013 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contented that, the suit survey number is a Government land which measures 43 acres 7 guntas. Out of the said land, 1 acre was granted in favour of one Chikkapapaiah. The plaintiff being a landless agriculturist, was cultivating the suit schedule property for more than 30 years, and applied for the regularisation of his unauthorised cultivation on 08.07.1991 before the Land Grant Committee, Kunigal. The defendant was a powerful man and started interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff requested the defendant not to interfere. However, the defendant did not give any heed to the request made by the plaintiff. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prayed to decree the suit. 3.2. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. After the death of Kariyappa, his legal heirs were brought on record and the original defendant admitted that the suit survey number is a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5386 RSA No. 122 of 2013 Government kharab land. It was denied that the said land was granted in favour of one Chikkapapaiah and the plaintiff, being a landless agriculturist, was cultivating the suit schedule property for more than 30 years and he had applied for regularisation of his unauthorised cultivation before the Land Grant Committee. It was contented that, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property which previously belonged to the Government. The Government has formed the sites and allotted the same to the villagers. The defendant has also applied for the grant of site in his favour, which was pending for adjudication. It was contented that, the Tahsildar, Kunigal had visited the spot and drawn a mahazar regarding the possession of the defendant and same was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur. It is contended that, the defendant has constructed a shed in the written statement schedule property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 3.3. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5386 RSA No. 122 of 2013 1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is in actual and lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? 2) Whether the Plaintiff further proves the allegations of interference as alleged in the plaint? 3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for? 4) What order or decree? 3.4. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1, examined 1 witness as PW2 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. In rebuttal, the defendant did not produce any documentary evidence and did not enter the witness box. 3.5. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit in part vide judgment and decree dated 03.04.2006. 3.6. The LRs of the defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5386 RSA No. 122 of 2013 OS No.433/1998, preferred an appeal in RA No.46/2010 before the First Appellate Court. 3.7. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the appellants prove that after the demise of defendant Kariyappa the suit had become infructuous? 2. Whether the appellants prove that the Trial Court was not justified to partly decree the suit by moulding the relief on the basis of Ex. P3 Saguvali Chit? 3. Whether the appellants prove that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record? 4. Whether the appellants proves that the judgment of the Trial Court is arbitrary, vexatious, capricious and is opposed to the settled principles of law and is liable to be interfered with? 5. To what order or decree? 3.8. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, allowed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 03.12.2012 with costs, reversed - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5386 RSA No. 122 of 2013 the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, and consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 3.9. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2012 in RA No.46/2010, filed this regular second appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the LRs of the defendant. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, the First Appellate Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. He submits that, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. He submits that, in a suit for permanent injunction, the Court is required to consider the possession and interference as of the date of instituting the suit. The plaintiff has produced the records to show that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, the First Appellate Court committed an error in placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivapa Basavantappa - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5386 RSA No. 122 of 2013 Devaravar (Deceased) by LR Vs. Babajan2. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the LRs of the defendant submits that, the suit is one for bare injunction. The defendant died during the pendency of the suit. Hence, cause of action does not survive for consideration as the suit is one for bare injunction and the relief of injunction is in personam in nature and not in rem. The First Appellate Court has rightly held that, the cause of action does not survive against the LRs of the deceased defendant. Hence, on this ground, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. This Court, vide order dated 15.02.2013, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: i) Whether the lower Appellate Court was right and justified in reversing the findings recorded by the Trial Court and in setting aside the decree of permanent injunction granted on the ground that the original defendant against whom the suit was filed having died, the cause did not 2 1999 (4) Kar.L.J. 293 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5386 RSA No. 122 of 2013 survive against his legal representatives, though the facts, would reveal that the legal representatives had been indeed brought on record during the pendency of they the suit and they resisted the suit by leading evidence and asserting their right? ii) Whether the lower Appellate Court was right and justified in placing reliance on the judgment in the case of SHIVAPPA BASAVANTAPPA DEVARAVAR (DECEASED) BY L.R. VS. BABAJAN-1999(4) KAR.L.J. 293 in holding that the suit itself stood abated upon the death of the defendant having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case? Reg. Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1 and 2: 8. Substantial questions of law Nos.(i) and (ii) are interlinked with each other. Hence, they are taken together for a common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 9. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and he has reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and also to prove his possession, examined 1 witness as PW2 and produced the revenue records to establish his possession over the suit schedule property. He has deposed that, the defendant has no right, title or interest over the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5386 RSA No. 122 of 2013 suit schedule property in any manner and the defendant made an attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. In rebuttal, the LRs of the defendant have not entered the witness box. 10. From the perusal of the contents of the plaint, the plaintiff has made an allegation against the defendant and not against the LRs of the deceased defendant. In a suit for injunction, the cause of action is against the defendant and not against his LRs. The suit for injunction is in the nature of in personam and not in rem. There is a distinction between the death of the plaintiff and the death of the defendant. The injunction is operative against the defendant. In fact, the model form of prayers in many suits for injunction would be “restraining the defendants or his men or servants or agents or anybody claiming under or through him”. Therefore, on the death of the defendant, all these persons would vanish. Consequently, the question of binding the LRs of the defendant by such injunction would not arise. But, this will not be the case if the plaintiff, who seeks injunction, dies. A decree for injunction obtained by the plaintiff can be - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5386 RSA No. 122 of 2013 succeeded to by his LRs and such a right of injunction does not die with the plaintiff. Further, there are no avernments made in the plaint regarding covering LRs or anyone acting on behalf of the defendant. The First Appellate Court, placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivapa Basavantappa Devaravar (Deceased) by LR (supra), has rightly held that, the suit did not survive against the LRs of the deceased defendant who died during the pendency of the suit. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 11. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The regular second appeal is dismissed; - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5386 RSA No. 122 of 2013 ii. The judgment and decree dated 03.12.2012 passed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.46/2010 is hereby confirmed; iii. No order as to the costs; iv. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21