S.146 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows proceedings to be taken against the legal representatives of a deceased judgment debtor, and the decree for injunction is binding on the legal representatives inheriting the adjacent property.

Balasubramanyan, J.

This revision is by the legal representatives of the second judgment debtor in O.S. No. 227 of 1975 on the file of the Munsiff' s Court of Punaloor. The respondent-decree holder obtained a decree against the second judgment debtor, the father of the revision petitioners, their brother who figured as the first judgment debtor, and their mother who figured as the 3rd judgment debtor for a perpetual injunction restraining the judgment debtors from trespassing into the decree schedule property, taking income therefrom, destroying the boundaries thereof and from interfering with the right of the decree holder to take income from the property and from in any manner causing disturbance to his possession. The Execution Petition, E.P. 118 of 1985 was filed against judgment debtors 1 and 3 and the other legal representatives of the second judgment debtor, the father complaining that they had violated the decree granted to the decree holder. An objection was filed by the legal representatives of the second judgment debtor contending that since the decree was one for injunction the decree holder was not entitled to execute the decree against the legal representatives of the second judgment debtor. They also denied that they have done anything against the terms of the decree.

2. An enquiry was conducted by the executing Court in the execution petition. That court held that the legal representatives of the second judgment debtor were responsible for cutting a tree from the decree schedule property in violation of the decree. Observing that such violations of decree should be dealt with seriously the executing court issued a warrant for the arrest of the revision petitioners. It is this order that is challenged in revision by the legal representatives of the deceased second judgment debtor.

3. When the revision came up for hearing before the Single Judge, reliance was placed on the decision in Kathiyammakutly Umma v. Karappan (1988 (1) KLJ 411) by the decree holder and the decision in Makky Chandran v. Sudhakaran (CRP No. 2543 of 1984) by the judgment debtor on the question whether the decree could be executed against the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor. The learned Single Judge felt that there was a conflict in the views expressed in the two decisions referred to above and consequently adjourned this case for being heard by a Division Bench. That is how this revision has come before us.

4. The contention on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor is that even if the terms of the decree granted against the deceased is violated by his legal representatives, the decree holder is not entitled to approach the executing court for relief against them but will have to seek his remedies against the legal representatives elsewhere. It is contended that the enforcement of the decree could only be under S.50 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Only in a case where the judgment debtor himself had violated the decree it might be possible to proceed against the legal representatives for that act of violation by the judgment debtor himself. The position would be different when the violation itself is by the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor and in such a situation the executing court did not have the jurisdiction or authority to proceed with an execution against the legal representatives. Learned counsel for the decree holder on the other hand submitted that the dispute between the decree holder and the judgment debtors, who were the father, mother and brother of the revision petitioners was regarding the boundary between the properties of the two parties, that a decree had been passed determining the limits of the properties and relief had been granted to the decree holder, that in the nature of the decree which relates to immovable property it is binding not only on the judgment debtor but on his legal representatives who inherit the adjacent property belonging