( 1 ) BY this reference, we are called upon to decide the following questions :" (1) Whether a transferee of a property purchasing the property by registered sale deed from the judgment-debtor can be said to be a person claiming under judgment- debtor and be held to be subject to all those liabilities and encumbrances to which the original transferor and judgment-debtor had been for the purpose of Sec. 146 ? (2) Whether the decree passed by the Court directing the original owner of the property i. e. Judgment-debtor not to cause interference or obstruction in the plaintiff's user of that land (which has been later transferred to the respondent) and putting a rider on the right of the judgment-debtor to the user of that land by him as well is binding on the subsequent transferee i. e. Purchaser thereof ? (3) Whether the decree-holder was entitled to seek execution of that decree, in the above suit which was passed and granted permanent injunction with reference to the land against the judgment-debtor of that property, as being against him ? If yes, did the Court below illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested by dismissing execution application ? (4) Whether the decisions in the cases of Basavantha Dundappa v. Shidalingappa Sidaraddi, reported in ILR (1986) 2 Karnataka 1959 and D'souza v. Joseph reported in ILR (1992) Kant 2972 : (AIR 1993 Karnataka 68) do lay the correct law on this subject particularly in view of Sec. 146 of the C. P. C. and the principle laid down in Muthukaruppa Pillai v. Ganesan, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 69 ? (4a) Whether in such cases the remedy of the decree-holder is only to file a fresh suit against the transferee and not to apply for execution of the original decree passed against original owner (i. e. Transferor-judgment-debtor) against subsequent purchaser ?"

( 2 ) ). The relevant undisputed facts leading to this reference may be stated as under :the petitioner herein was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 307/1906 which was filed by him in the trial Court, viz. , the then Court of Sub-Judge at Havari, against one Subbannacharya and his son Sheshacharya for the relief of declaration that he acquired by prescription the easementary right of way passing through the backyard of adjoining defendants' house from his (plaintiff's) house; and for permanent injunction restraining them from obstructing the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of that right of way, and also to restrain them from discharging the water from their bath-room into front yard of plaintiff's house. On contest, that suit was decreed as prayed by the trial Court by its judgment dated 21-12-1907. The said decree was taken in appeal by defendants in Appeal No. 48/1908. That appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court. Though the certified copy of the said decree is not produced on the record of this revision proceeding, yet, the aforestated position of the litigation between the parties in Civil Suit No. 307/1906 is not in dispute and the same is sufficiently borne out by the photocopies of the certified copy of the trial Court's judgment dated 21-12-1907 and of appellate Court's judgment dated 21-1-1908, which are produced along with a memo by the learned counsel for petitioner. The petitioner is hereinafter referred to as 'the decree-holder (D. Hr.)'. Long after the said decree for declaration and permanent injunction dated 21-12-1907 was obtained by the D. Hr. , the said judgment-debtor sold their said house premises to the respondent herein, together with its vacant space including its back-yard, by a registered sale deed dated 27-4-1955. Therefore, respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the transferee-judgment-debtor'. Subsequently, on 4-9-1981, the execution application under Order 21, Rule 11 of the C. P. C. was filed by the decree-holder in the Court below against respondent-purchaser seeking execution of the said decree by his arrest and detention in civil prison to compel him to keep the said suit passage free fo