- In Chennaiah and ors vs. Bylappa and ors the Karnataka HC has held that in a suit relating to the grant of injunction in respect of an immovable property, the right to sue is not limited to the plaintiff, instead it survives to his legal representative and thus, it does not abate on the death of the parties.
- The present second appeal arose out of a suit for injunction which had been instituted by the appellants against Bylappa. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had refused to grant the injunction and thus, the plaintiffs had presented the second appeal.
- Both the first plaintiff and the original defendant had passed away and their legal representatives were brought on record. The argument that was advanced was that since the suit was one of injunction, on the death of the first plaintiff, it could not continue, and on the death of the defendant, the suit would abate.
- The Court observed that the right to enjoy possession of an immovable property is not a right which can be enjoyed by just one person, and it is not a right which cannot survive beyond the life of that person. The right to enjoy a property is a transferable right and is not limited to just one person. On the death of a person, the right to enjoy possession of that property survives onto his legal representatives.
- The Court added that if it was to be held that in a suit for injunction, whenever the plaintiff or defendant would die, the suit would abate, it would lead to the creation of a never ending cycle of litigation, which would result in an absurd situation where the parties would be litigating in the Courts forever.
- It was also observed that injunction under the Specific Relief Act is a preventive relief which is granted at the discretion of the Court. A decree of perpetual injunction perpetually enjoins a defendant from the assertion of his right or from the commission of an act which is contrary to the plaintiff’s rights. There is nothing indicated in the Specific Relief Act which would indicate that injunction is a right which is personal to the plaintiff only, like a suit for defamation would be. This was observed by the Court while referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Puran Singh and ors vs State of Punjab and ors (1996) SCC.
- The Hon’ble HC also referred to section 306 of the Indian Evidence Act where it is held that in a suit for injunction in relation to an immovable property, the legal representatives of the deceased would enjoy the relief that the original party would be entitled to by virtue of inheritance or succession in their favour, and thus, the suit would not abate and would continue by bringing the legal representatives on record.
- Thus, the appeal was allowed and the decisions of both the lower Courts were set aside.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
