SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

VENKATARAMANAPPA – Appellant
Versus
VENKATARAMANAPPA @ KARI KENCHAPPA – Respondent
RFA 986/2014



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.986 OF 2014 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

VENKATARAMANAPPA

S/O LATE.MUDHAIAH

AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

R/O: MUDDANAPALYA VILLAGE

(MUDDAIANAPALYA VILLAGE)

YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK

BENGALURU - 560 056.

SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

1(a). SRI.ASHATHARAMEGOWDA

S/O LATE.VENKATARAMANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

1(b). SRI.MANJUNATHA

S/O LATE.VENKATARAMANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

1(c). SRI.MUDDE GOWDA

S/O LATE.VENKATARAMANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

1(d). SMT.SAKAMMA

W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

R/O:MADUVARA VILLAGE

DASANAPURA HOBLI

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

2

1(e). SRI.LINGE GOWDA

S/O LATE.VENKATARAMANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

1(f). SRI.MANJUNAGAPPA

S/O LATE.VENKATARAMANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

1(a) TO (c) AND (e) AND 1(f) ARE

RESIDING AT MUDDAIAHANAPALYA VILLAGE

GIDADA KONENAHALLI

DHAKALE

VISHWANEEDAM POST

YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK

1(g). SMT.MANJAMMA

W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA

D/O LATE.VENKATARAMANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

R/O: THALGHATPURA VILLAGE

KANAKAPURA ROAD

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

&APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.M.K.BHASKARAIAH - ADVOCATE)

AND:

VENKATARAMANAPPA @ KARI KENCHAPPA

S/O LATE.SUGGANAHALLI NANJAPPA

AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

R/O MUDDAIANAPALYA VILLAGE

YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK

BENGALURU - 560 056.

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

1(a). SMT.KEMPAMMA

W/O LATE.CHALUVAIAH

D/O VENKATARAMANAPPA @

KARE KENCHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

3

1(b). KEMPALAKSHMAMMA

W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA @

KARE KENCHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

DEFENDANTS NO.1(a) AND 1(b)

ARE RESIDING AT

GIDADA KENCHANAHALLI GRAMA

YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI

VISHWANEEDAM POST

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK

BENGALURU - 560 091.

1(c). SMT.REVAMMA

W/O LATE.MUNIHANUMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

1(d). SMT.LAKSHMIDEVI

D/O LATE MUNIHANUMAIAH

GRAND DAUGHTER OF

VENKATARAMANAPPA @

KARE KENCHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

1(e). SRI.VENKATESH

S/O LATE MUNIHANUMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

1(f). SRI.HANUMANTHARAJU

S/O LATE MUNIHANUMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

1(c) TO 1(f) ARE RESIDING AT

R/O.MUDDAIAHANAPALYA VILLAGE

GIDADAKENCHANAHALLI DHAKALE

YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI

VISHWANEEDAM POST

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK

BENGALURU - 560 091.

2.

THE COMMISSIONER

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

CHOWDAIAH ROAD

BENGALURU.

&RESPONDENTS

4

[BY SRI.L.VENKATARAMA REDDY - ADVOCATE

FOR R1(a) AND 1(b) (ABSENT),

R1(c), (d), (e) AND (f) - SERVED

SMT.POORNIMA.M AND

SRI.B.LETHIF - ADVOCATES

FOR R2 (ABSENT)]

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE, 1908.

THIS RFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Sri.M.K.Bhaskaraiah learned counsel for appellants

has appeared in person. There is no representation on

behalf of respondents 1(a) and 1(b) and respondent No.2.

This is an appeal from the Court of XL Additional City

Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru in O.S.No.3348/2004.

2.

Learned

counsel

Sri.M.K.Bhaskaraiah

for

appellants

submits

that

the

original

plaintiff

Venkataramanappa filed a suit against the original

defendant Venkataramanappa @ Kari Kenchappa for

permanent injunction. The original plaintiff and defendant

5

died during the pendency of the suit before the final

adjudication. Their legal representatives were brought on

record. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 26.04.2014.

Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the legal

representatives of deceased original plaintiff have preferred

this appeal.

Submission is noted.

The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed for

permanent injunction simpliciter. It is unnecessary to refer

to the pleadings in detail. Applying the principles of "actio

personalis moritur cum persona", injunction is personal

remedy against a person in particular, the defendant.

Therefore, the very prayer itself makes it clear that its a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top