M/S VARNA BUILDERS vs SMT RADHA SRIDHAR W/O SRI R SRIDHAR

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60845
RFA No. 1545 of 2011


CNR: KAHC010652712011





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1545 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

1. M/S VARNA BUILDERS
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
SRI V BHAKTA KUMAR
OFF. AT SWISS COMPLEX,
2ND FLOOR, NO.33,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. S.CHETAN NAG, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SRI. R.DESHRAJ, ADVOCATE AND ALSO FOR
PROPOSED IMPLEADING APPLICANT)

AND:

1. SMT RADHA SRIDHAR
W/O SRI R SRIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
SRIVARDHINI NO.118, 4TH CROSS,
GAVIPURAM EXTENSION,
BENGALURU -560019.

2.


2(A)














Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

SMT PATTAMMAL
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

SRI K V ARAVAMUDAN
S/O K VEDANTH IYENGAR
MAJOR
SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY LRS

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60845
RFA No. 1545 of 2011


CNR: KAHC010652712011



2(A)(A)



2(A)(B)



2(A)(C)



2(A)(D)



2(A)(E)

SMT. JAMBU KANNAN,
W/O. LATE K.V.ARAVAMUDAN,
MAJOR,

SRI. K.V.DASARTHI
S/O. LATE K.V.ARAVAMUDAN,
MAJOR,

SMT. SHEELA SHRIPATHI,
W/O. LATE K.V.SHRIPATHI,
MAJOR,

SMT. SHRUTHI,
D/O. LATE K.V.SHRIPATHI,
MAJOR

SRI. SRINIDHI,
S/O. LATE K.V.SHRIPATHI,
MAJOR,

RESPONDENTS NO.2A(A) TO 2A(E)
R/AT DOOR NO. 107/58, IV MAIN,
GAVIPURAM EXTENSION,
BENGALURU-560019.

2(B). SRI. K.V.VARADARAJAN,
S/O. SRI. K.VEDANTHA IYENGAR,
AGED MAJOR,

2(C). SRI. K.V.SAMPATH,
S/O. SRI. K.VEDANTHA IYENGAR,
AGED MAJOR,

2(D). SRI. K.V.VIJAYASARATHI,
S/O. SRI. K.VEDANTHA IYENGAR,
AGED MAJOR,

2(E). SRI. K.V.RAGHUPATHI,
S/O. SRI. K.VEDANTHA IYENGAR,
AGED MAJOR,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60845
RFA No. 1545 of 2011


CNR: KAHC010652712011




RESPONDENTS NO. 2(B) TO 2(E) ARE
RESIDING AT "SRI SHAILAM" NO.59,
4TH MAIN, GAVIPURAM, GUTTAHALLI,
CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU-560019.

3. THE COMMISSIONER
CORPORATION OF THE
CITY OF BENGALURU
NOW BBMP, BENGALURU.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. JASHO LAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SOHANI HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. B.S.VIJAYALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR R2(C);
SRI. C.K.NANDAKUMAR AND ASSTS., ADVOCATE
FOR R2(E);
R2(A), R2(B) AND R2(D) ARE
SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
SRI. ARAVIND M. NEGLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.S.Chetan Nag., along with Sri.R.Deshraj., counsel
for the appellant and also for proposed impleading applicant;
Smt.Jasho Lakshmi., and Smt.Sohani Holla., counsel for
respondent No.1 appeared in person.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60845
RFA No. 1545 of 2011


CNR: KAHC010652712011



2. This is an appeal from the Court of the XXVII
Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City.
3. The plaintiff, Smt.Radha Sridhar., filed a suit
against the defendants, Smt.Pattammal, and the
Commissioner in O.S.No.1812/1992. The Trial Court, vide
Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2008, decreed the suit.
The present appeal is filed under Section 96 of the CPC by
M/s.Varana Builders.
4. Counsel for the respective parties advanced
several contentions. The Court heard and perused the
records with care.
5. The following points arise for determination:

1. Whether the suit for bare injunction abated upon
the death of the defendant.

2. Whether the Trial Court was competent to pass a
Judgment and Decree after abatement.

3. What is the consequence of an appeal filed against
such Judgment and Decree?

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60845
RFA No. 1545 of 2011


CNR: KAHC010652712011



6. The suit is for a permanent injunction simpliciter.
It is unnecessary to refer to the pleadings in detail.
An injunction is, in its nature, a remedy against an
individual. It will be issued only in respect of acts done by
the person against whom it is sought to be enforced. An
injunction is a personal remedy and does not run with the
land. Ordinarily, a decree for an injunction can be executed
only against the person against whom the injunction is
issued, and it cannot be executed against any other person
in the absence of a statutory provision. The relief of an
injunction is purely personal.
Applying the principles of “actio personalis moritur cum
persona”, the injunction is a personal remedy against a
person, particularly the defendant. It restricts the person,
i.e., the defendant.
In a bare injunction suit, the relief sought and the
cause of action are personal to the defendant. When the
defendant dies, the right to sue ordinarily does not survive,

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60845
RFA No. 1545 of 2011


CNR: KAHC010652712011



and the suit abates under Order XXII CPC. Any Judgment or
Decree the Trial Court passes afterwards is a nullity in law
because it is passed against a dead person and without
jurisdiction.
The records clearly show that the defendant,
Smt.Pattammal, died while the proceedings were pending
and before the final Judgment was delivered. Upon a
person’s death, the cause of action dies with them and does
not pass to their legal representatives. In a suit seeking only
a permanent injunction, if the defendant dies before the
dispute is finally adjudicated, the right to sue does not
survive, and the cause of action ends.
7. Under these circumstances, the consequence of
an appeal would be that:

1. The appeal will succeed, not on the merits of
the injunction, but on the ground that the
Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to decide after
abatement.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60845
RFA No. 1545 of 2011


CNR: KAHC010652712011




2. The decree will be set aside, and the suit will
stand abated as of the date of the
defendant’s death.

3. No substantive rights flow from such a
decree, and execution based on it cannot be
sustained.
ORDER
allowed
I. The appeal is .

II. The Judgment and Decree dated:30.07.2008
passed by the Trial Court after the death of
the first defendant are set aside.

III. It is declared that the suit abated upon the
death of the first defendant.

IV. Any execution or enforcement of the
impugned decree is null and void.

V. Parties shall bear their own costs.

VI. Because of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, does not
survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
MRP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59.1