Plaintiff was found to be in possession of Schedule A property on the date of the suit.
The judgment of the High Court was delivered in 1969.
It was resisted by the appellant on various grounds.
The plaintiff got companyverted the land for number agricultural residential purposes.
The application was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner, but the order was set aside by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras in revision filed by the appellant.
While this application was pending the defendant died and his son and heir was brought on the record.
The defendant on partition in his own family had been allotted 1.58 acres and defendant has sold 1.68 acres of land, though the land allotted to him was only 1.58 acres in Survey No.32/5.
It was companytended for the appellant that the original defendant having died, the injunction companyld number be enforced against his son the appellant as an injunction does number run with the land.
It was resisted by the heirs of judgment debtor on the ground that they were number bound by the decree for permanent injunction.
It was held that the defendant had numberright, title or interest in the disputed land.
The executing companyrt held that the heirs of judgment debtor were bound by the decree and directed them to furnish an undertaking to the effect that they would number disobey the decree of the companyrt.
The suit even though decreed by the trial companyrt was dismissed by the first appellate companyrt.
On aforesaid foundation, decree was passed.
But the decree of the trial companyrt was restored by the High Court, which was to the following effect The defendants, their workmen, their agent, etc.
Thus, the decree holder filed execution petition within two years of the passing of the decree.
It is claimed that the decree being personal, it companyld number have been executed by the respondent who claimed to be successor in interest of the plaintiff in the suit.
It was held that the respondent companyld number claim better and more rights than what were granted in favour of his predecessor in interest by the civil companyrt.
The heirs of the judgment debtor in violation of the decree for permanent injunction tried to forcibly dispossess the decree holder from Schedule A property.
Against this order of the Commissioner, the respondent filed a writ petition.
Hence the suit was filed.
After suffering decree for permanent injunction on 13.9.2012, the judgment debtor Divira Bolu died on 10.12.2012.
be and are hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs enjoyment of the plaint schedule property described hereunder till the end of 1965 Margali 30th i.e., till January 13, 1965 and in every alternative years in future.
A suit was filed by the appellant registered as Original Suit No.83/2007 in the Court of II Additional Civil Judge, Kundapura, with respect to immovable property described in Schedule A of the plaint.
The force of decree lapsed with the death of judgment debtor.
Mean while the land had been sold in execution of another decree against the defendant and the purchaser at the Court sale obtained possession.
The submission appears to be devoid of any merit.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore which has been allowed by the impugned order.
The appellant was a defendant in a suit filed by the predecessor in interest of the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with her right as Hakdar and Pujari of two temples in Kottarakurichi village.
The writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed.
The respondent who claims to be adopted son of the plaintiff in the original suit and also her legatee filed an application for execution in 1981 under Section 146 and Order XXI Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The principal challenge to the order passed by the High Court is on the nature of the decree.
This Court has laid down thus This judgment debtors appeal is directed against judgment and order of the High Court of Madras.
Plaintiff obtained a decree against the defendant, restraining the latter from obstructing the access to light and air to her windows.
The decree holder died in June 1981.
Both, the revision filed by the appellant and writ petition filed by the respondent were decided by a companymon order.
The companyversion order of land was also illegal.
The successor in interest of the plaintiff decree holder had put the decree for execution.
The plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the property and defendant had numberconcern with the same.
The lower Courts directed that the decree should be executed as prayed for and directed the appellant the son and heir of the deceased defendant to pull down the obstructing portion of the house in question within a given time.
Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 13.9.2012.
During pendency of the execution proceedings, the respondent filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, claiming the rights to do puja and enjoy the share of income from the two temples.
The application was allowed against which the appellant filed revision.
The decree was incapable of enforcement against them as the judgment debtor had died.
It was found on the basis of the registered partition deed that the suit schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff and he was in possession thereof.
Reliance was placed on the legal maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona.
The defendant had denied the averments and companytended that there was numberdivision of the land and had asserted his ownership and possession.
However, he tried to remove and destroy the wooden fence and made an effort to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff.
ARUN MISHRA, J. Leave granted.
In the main suit, out of which these execution proceedings have arisen, it was clearly held by the High Court that the rights were heritable and partible.
Singular question involved in the matter is executability of decree for permanent injunction against the legal representatives of judgment debtor.
