The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the legal representatives for the violation of a permanent injunction decree, as governed by Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) THIS revision by the decree holder is directed against the order dated 3-7-1979 passed by the munsiff, Kundagol, in Execution Case No. 3 of 1977.

( 2 ) THE decree holder plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 30 of 1972 against one Udachappa, the husband of L. R. No. 1 (d) and father of L. R. Nos. l (a) to l (c) for a declaration that he was a tenant of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining him (Udachappa) from interfering with his possession. The said suit was decreed in 1973 against Udachappa. Udachappa's appeal in R. A. No. 180 of 1973 was dismissed on 24-7-1974.

( 3 ) THE decree holder sued out the present execution in 1977 alleging that notwithstanding the permanent injunction decree against Udachappa, his L. Rs. l (a) to (d) have started interfering with his possession of the suit property. Thus, according to him, the legal representatives have willfully failed to obey the decree. Hence, he filed the execution praying for arrest and detention under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also sought to recover the costs awarded to him in O. S No. 30 of 1972 and R. A. No. 180 of 1973.

( 4 ) SO far as regards the costs are concerned, the legal representatives cannot escape the liability. The decree holder is entitled to execute the decree against the L. Rs. , of the original defendant for recovering the costs. The L. Rs. , would be liable to the extent of the property of the deceased that has come to their hands. The costs can be recovered by the decree holder only by pursuing against the property of the deceased Udachappa, which has come to the hands of the L. Rs.

( 5 ) NOW the question is whether the decree holders can proceed against the legal representatives of the deceased defendant for the violation of the permanent injunction decree passed against the original defendant.

( 6 ) THE Learned Counsel Sri Savanur referred me to Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as:

" (1) Where a judgment debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of a decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representative of the deceased. (2) Where the decree is executed against such legal representative, he shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been duly disposed of ; and, for the purpose of ascertaining such liability, the Court executing the decree may, of its own motion or on the application of the decree holder, compel such legal representative to produce such accounts as it thinks fit".

Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not make any distinction between a decree for permanent injunction and a decree of any other nature.

( 7 ) IN Execution Proceedings by Shri Soonavala, 1958 Edition, on page 386 it is said:

"a decree for injunction does not run with the land and cannot be enforced against a purchaser of the property from the defendant. But it can be enforced against a legal representative of the deceassed j. d. Plaintiff obtained a decree against the defendant, restraining the latter from obstructing the access to light and air to her windows. The plaintiff applied for execution praying that the portion of the defendant's house which obstructed her windows should be pulled down. While this application was pending the defendant died and his son and heir was brought on the record. 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. It was contended for the appellant that the original defendant having died, the injunction could not be enforced against his son (the appellant) as an injunction does not run with the land. It was held that having regard to the provisions of Section 50, the injunction ordered against the deceased defendant might be enforced agai