Karnataka High Court
WP/18859/2021 of SMT. LAKKAMMA Vs SMT HANUMAKKA on 3 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010384732021 NC: 2026:KHC:47922 W.P. No.18859/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A . PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.18859/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKKAMMA W/O LATE V.M. RANGAPPA AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.18859/2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. LAKKAMMA
W/O LATE V.M. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.
2.
SRI. V.R. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE V.M. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
3.
SRI. V.R. GOVINDA
S/O LATE V.M. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
4.
SMT. SARASWATHI
D/O LATE V.M. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
5.
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE V.M. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
6.
SMT. RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE V.M. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
7.
SMT. LATHA
D/O LATE V.M. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
VEERASAGARA VILLAGE
Digitally signed
by RUPA V
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 560064.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GAGAN S, ADV., FOR
SRI. G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADV.,)
AND:
1.
SMT. HANUMAKKA
W/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
2.
SRI. V. MUNIRATHNA
D/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
3.
SRI. V. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
4.
SRI. V. MOHAN
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT SOMASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE
YESHAVANTHAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560090.
…RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R4 ARE SERVED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
AND PROCEEDS OF THE CASE. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
07.09.2021 PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE,
HC-KAR
BENGALURU
RURAL
DISTRICT,
AT
BENGALURU
IN
O.S.NO.117/2011 ON I.A.NO.2 TO 4 & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.09.2021 passed on IA.Nos.2 to 4 in OS.No.117/2011 by the III Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short ‘the trial Court’).
2. Heard Sri.Gagan S., learned counsel appearing for Sri.G.A.Srikante Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record.
3. Despite the service of notice, there is no representation for the respondents.
HC-KAR
4. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit in OS.No.117/2011 against the deceased Sri.V.M.Rangappa seeking a judgment and decree for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the sole defendant Sri.V.M.Rangappa, died on 11.09.2019. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed applications in IA.Nos.2 to 4 under Order XXII Rule 4, Rule 9 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking to bring the legal representatives of the deceased defendant on record, for condonation of the delay and for setting aside the abatement. The trial Court, under the impugned order, allowed the said applications on the ground that the suit is one for injunction and that the right to sue survives.
5. It is to be noticed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the deceased Sri.V.M.Rangappa on a specific allegation that, on 20.01.2011 and on 26.01.2011, the defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
HC-KAR
6. A perusal of the averments in paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the plaint clearly indicates that the entire averments made against the defendant Sri.V.M.Rangappa, that he is interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and cause of action is shown on two days.
7. It is trite law that, once the sole defendant in a suit for permanent injunction has died, the cause to sue does not survive. This Court in the case of Smt.Usha Gopal Gowda v. Sri.M.T.Tharanath1, considering the decision of the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court has held that right to sue does not survive, where the relief is for permanent injunction against the sole defendant. Considering the enunciation of law laid down by this Court, I am of the view that the trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the applications. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
1 WP.No.15445/2015 disposed of on 12.10.2018
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 07.09.2021 passed on IA.Nos.2 to in OS.No.117/2011 by the III Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.Nos.2 to 4 filed by the plaintiffs to bring legal heirs of the deceased defendant are rejected.
Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE
ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25