IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1766 OF 2023 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI.KARTHIK B.T S/O SRI B.M.THONTADARYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.TF-2 (3^RD FLOOR)

(IDENTIFICATION REAR PORTION)

LE-ORCHID APARTMENTS SBI OFFICERS COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560079 REPRESENTED BY POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.K.SHIVA SHANKAR S/O LATE M.N.KARIBASAPPA Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS Location: HIGH COURT OF RESIDING AT NO.13, 2^ND MAIN KARNATAKA SBI COLONY BASAVESHWARNAGAR BENGALURU-560079 …APPELLANT (BY SRI.RAVI H K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

PATTANATH UNNI (SINCE DEAD BY LRS)

1. SMT.NEENA AJITH D/O LATE PUTTANATH UNNI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.GF-1, GF-2, SF-2 'LE-ORCHID' APARTMENTS SBI OFFICERS COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560079

2. SMT.SONA SAHIL D/O LATE PUTTANATH UNNI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.GF-1, GF-2, SF-2 'LE-ORCHID' APARTMENTS SBI OFFICERS COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560079 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ANANTHARAM G.R, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.07.2023 PASSED IN OS.NO.4515/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-5) IN OS.NO.4515/2016, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD IN ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who is primarily aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit for injunction simplictor in O.S.No.4515/2016 on the file of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-5) solely on the premise that the sole defendant has died and therefore, the right to prosecute the injunction suit against legal heirs does not survive. The said order is under challenge.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal has placed strong reliance on the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and another vs. Smt.Narasamma and others in RSA No.743/2011 Placing emphasis on the principles laid down therein, he would contend that an order dismissing a suit as abated, without examining whether the right to sue survives, is legally unsustainable and amounts to perversity.

According to him, the dispute on hand pertains to a parking slot, which undeniably constitutes immovable property. The right asserted in the suit, therefore, is not a mere personal right but a proprietary right attached to the estate. He would further submit that upon the death of the sole defendant, his legal representatives have stepped into his shoes and have succeeded to his estate and consequently, the cause of action survives against them. Hence, the impugned order dismissing the suit as abated is contrary to settled principles of law and requires interference.

4. Per contra, Sri Anantharam G.R., learned counsel appearing for the defendants, drawing support from the judgments of this Court in Shivananjaiah vs. Kariyappa (since deceased) by LRs., Prakash and others in RSA No.122/2013 and Shivappa Basavantappa Devar (deceased) by LRs. vs. Babajan¹, would contend that a suit for bare injunction is essentially personal in nature.

1999(4) KAR.L.J.293

According to him, such a relief operates in personam and not in rem. He would argue that where the relief sought is injunction simplicitor against an individual defendant, the cause of action is personal to that defendant. Consequently, upon the death of the sole defendant, the cause of action does not survive and the suit necessarily abates. On this premise, he submits that the learned Trial Judge was justified in dismissing the suit as abated.

5. Having heard the learned counsels