SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Ker) 85

THOMAS
KATHIYAMMAKUTTY UMMA – Appellant
Versus
KARAPPAN – Respondent


Judgment :-

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






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top