M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE revision is preferred against an order passed by the lower court bringing the respondents on record as plaintiffs on the death of their father, who had earlier filed the suit for permanent injunction. The petitioners raised the contention that the relief of permanent injunction is personal to the father of the plaintiffs and, therefore, his legal representatives could not continue the suit for permanent injunction. This contention was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the relief of permanent injunction is sought in respect of immovable property and that the said right to possession survive to the legal representatives.

( 2 ) THE law relating to survival of rights on the death of a person is contained in Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act which corresponds to the provisions of Law Reforms (Miscellaneous Provision) Act, 1934 in england. This provision modifies the common law principle relating to personal actions abating on the death of the person a principle which is based on the maxim "actto personalia moritur cum persona". Under section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, all causes of action in personal actions, which under the common law abate on the death of the person, are allowed to survive to the legal representatives except the limited class of causes of action mentioned in that. Section.

( 3 ) SECTION 306 of the Indian Succession Act states that all demands whatsoever and all rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceeding existing in favour of or against a person at the time of his decease, survive to and against his executors or administrators, except causes of action for defamation, assault, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, or other personal injuries not causing the death of the patty, and except also cases where, after the death of the party, the relief sought could not be enjoyed or granting it whold be nugatory. The first example deals with an action brought by an injured person before his death. If he had already brought an action before his death, that right would survive. But, if he dies before bringing an action, it does not survive. The second example deals with a proceeding for divorce where the applicant dies. Then cause of action does not survive to his representatives.

( 4 ) THE Supreme Court has pointed out in Girijanandini vs. Bijendru narain (1) that the maxim also personalis moritur in a limited class of actions ex delicto such as actions for damages for defamation, assault or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party and in other actions, where after the death of the party, the relief granted could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory. The Supreme Court has stated in another case reported in Hazari vs. Nek (2) that Section 306 of the Indian succession Act expresses a qualification of the maxim actio Personalia mioritur cum persona to the extent that the section indicates that amongst cause of actions of a personal nature, that is to say, personal actions other than those expressly excluded by the section itself, survive. In Phool Rani vs. Naubat Rai (3) the Supreme Court has pointed out that the section is similar to the provisions of the Law Reforms (Miscellaneous Provisions) act. 1934 in England. Though the provision in S. 306 refers to executors and administrators, the same extends to legal representatives also (Melpurath sankunni vs. Thekittil Geopala nkutty (4) M. Veerappa vs. Evelya Sequeira (5 ).

( 5 ) IN the present case the right in question cannot be said to be personal in nature inasmuch as it is based on a right to defend the alleged , possession of the deceased on the date of suit. A right to remain in possession of the immovable property is certainly a right which devolves on the legal representatives of the person just as any other right in the property itself. A possessory right is as much a right which the law recognises. In any eyent, even treating it as a personal right, it is not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document