THOMAS
KATHIYAMMAKUTTY UMMA – Appellant
Versus
KARAPPAN – Respondent
1. The judgment debtor died during execution proceedings of a decree for injunction. When his legal representatives were sought to be brought on record, they resisted contending, inter alia, that the decree for injunction is not binding on them since it is only a personal decree as against the original judgment debtor. The objection were overruled by (he execution court. This revision is in challenge of the order.
2. Facts: the first respondent obtained a decree the will be referred to as the plaintiff, for convenience) restraining the sole defendant from obstructing the plaintiff "in erecting a fence on the western boundary of the plaint schedule property and from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property." The appellate court confirmed the decree. Decree holder was obliged to resort to execution proceedings since the defendant was not inclined to keep away when the decree holder tried to put up the fence. The defendant, at the same time, filed a second appeal, and during its pendency he passed away. The second appeal was dismissed as the legal representatives of the defendant did not get impleaded in the appeal. But the decree
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.