Karnataka HC Sets Aside Injunction Decree Passed After Defendant’s Death, Holds Bare Suit Had Abated

Smt. Radha Sridhar brought a suit for permanent injunction against Smt. Pattammal and the Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 1812/1992.

The Trial Court decreed the suit on 30 July 2008.

M/s Varna Builders appealed under Section 96 CPC.

The High Court noted that Pattammal had died while the suit was pending and before the Trial Court delivered judgment.

The Court applied Order XXII CPC, holding that where the right to sue does not survive the death of a party, the suit abates.

It relied on the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona and treated an injunction as a personal remedy directed against the person restrained, ordinarily enforceable only against that person.

The appeal was brought under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC.

The Court characterized the suit as one seeking only a personal injunction and concluded that the relief and cause of action were personal to Pattammal.

Because she died before the final adjudication, the Court held that the right to sue did not survive and the suit abated.

It therefore treated the Trial Court’s subsequent decree as a nullity, made without jurisdiction, and concluded that the appeal should succeed without consideration of the injunction’s merits.

It further declared any execution or enforcement of the decree null and void, ordered the parties to bear their own costs, and held that pending interlocutory applications did not survive for consideration.