1. The plaintiff-decree-holder is the appellant, and the matter arises in execution of the decree. The judgment-debtor is admittedly a kudikidappukaran in the plaint property belonging to the decree holder. The decree is for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the decree schedule property beyond 5 koles of his kudikidappu. According to the decree-holder, the defendant in violation of the decree trespassed beyond the aforesaid 5 koles and he therefore filed E. A. 538 of 1963 under O.21, R.32, CPC. to attach the judgment-debtor's property and thereby compel him to remove the fence which he had constructed in violation of the decree. The execution court allowed the application and directed the defendant to remove the fence. The learned judge in appeal took a different view on the ground that since the decree is one for prohibitory injunction there is no scope for the applicability of O.21, R.32, CPC.

2. The prayer in the execution application is to attach the judgment-debtor's property on the ground that the judgment-debtor in violation of the decree had cut and removed the branches from the trees standing on the decree schedule property bey