Injunction suits abate with the death of the sole defendant, as personal rights do not survive.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

96 OF THE CPC.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

Sri.Lakshmish.G., counsel for the appellants has appeared in person.

There is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 01.07.2025, on that day, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. Hence, for appearance of counsel for the respondent, it was ordered to be listed on 02.07.2025 and it was also made clear that if none appears for the respondent on the next date of hearing, the Court will proceed to pass appropriate orders.

The appeal is listed today. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Hence, this Court deems it proper to pass appropriate order on the merits of the case.

2. This is an appeal from the Court of XX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-32), Bengaluru City.

3. The plaintiff - Smt.R.Umadevi filed a suit against the defendant - C.Ramaiah in O.S.No.6258/2013. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated:06.04.2017, decreed the suit. Hence, the defendant has preferred an appeal under Section 96 of CPC.

4. Sri.Lakshmish.G., counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No.5685/2009 on the file of XVI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-12) as against the son of the respondent herein and the same was decreed on 15.12.2012 and it has attained finality.

The oral submission made by counsel for the appellant is placed on record.

Counsel further submits that during the pendency of the present appeal, the original defendant - C.Ramaiah died on

01.05.2019.

5. The suit is filed for a permanent injunction simpliciter. It is unnecessary to refer to pleadings in detail. 6. An injunction is in its nature a remedy against an individual, it will be issued only in respect of acts done by him against whom it is sought to be enforced. An injunction is a personal remedy and it 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 injunction is purely personal.

Applying the principles of “actio personalis mortiur cum persona”, the injunction is a personal remedy against a person, particularly against the defendant. It is a restriction against the person i.e., the defendant.

In the present case, the appellant was a sole defendant before the Trial Court and he dies during the pendency of the appeal. Once a man dies, the cause of action dies with him and it does not pass on to the legal representatives. In a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter, when the sole defendant dies before the final adjudication of the dispute, the right to sue does not survive and the cause of action dies.

This Court has taken note of the death of the sole defendant and concluding that the cause of action does not survive. Hence, the suit itself abates. Accordingly, the Regular First Appeal is disposed of Sd/-