K.T. Sankaran, J.

Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S. No. 89 of 1991, Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally, against respondents 3 and 4 and the revision petitioner for a permanent prohibitory injunction. The revision petitioner was the third defendant in the suit. The trial court decreed the suit on 18.2.1991. As per the decree, the defendants were restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, from cutting open a road through the property or from altering the nature of the property or committing any waste in the property. The decree has become final.

2. Alleging that the judgment debtors violated the decree and cut open a pathway, having a length of 150 metres and width of 3 metres, through the western side of the plaint schedule property on 26.6.1995 and that the judgment debtors destroyed tapioca, three mango trees, tamarind trees etc., the decree holders filed E.P. No. 112 of 1995 with a prayer to realise the loss of Rs. 5,000/- by attachment and sale of the properties of the judgment debtors. After the filing of the Execution Petition, the decree holders filed E.A. No. 217 of 1995 claiming a sum of Rs. 17,500/-, after assessing the loss sustained by them. This amount includes Rs. 5,000/- already mentioned in the Execution Petition.

3. The judgment debtors denied the allegations made against them. They contended that they did not violate the decree, there was no trespass by them, they did not cut open a pathway through the western side of the plaint schedule property and that they did not cut trees as alleged. It was contended by the judgment debtors that a road having a width of three metres was in existence on the western side of the plaint schedule property even at the time of institution of the suit and that the pathway was being used by the people of the locality as of right.

4. To prove the contentions, the decree holders examined P.Ws. 1 to 4. The first decree holder was examined as P.W. 1. The Commissioner, who inspected the property and assessed the loss, was examined as P.W. 2. P.W. 2 stated in the report and in evidence that the pathway was cut open and that trees were cut and removed only few days before his insepction. The Commissioner is an experienced senior member of the Bar. A neighbour of the decree holder was examined as P.W. 3, who deposed that she had witnessed the incident wherein the judgment debtors and others violated the decree. An Assistant Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board was examined as P.W. 4, whose evidence was held to be irrelevant. The revision petitioner, third judgment debtor, was examined as D.W. 1. The Head Surveyor of the Department of Survey was examined as D.W. 2. D.W. 3 is a neighbour, who stated that the way was in existence on the western side of the plaint schedule property.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that P.W. 1 admitted in evidence that even before the Execution Petition was filed he had transferred the property to his daughter. The counsel submitted that therefore the Execution Petition at the instance of the decree holder was not maintainable.

6. The court below, on appreciation of evidence, held that the judgment debtors had violated the decree and committed the acts which were complained of by the decree holders. The evidence was discussed in detail in the order impugned in this Revision. After carefully going through the order passed by the court below, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the finding of fact recorded by the court below that the judgment debtors had violated the decree. Normally, the revisional court would not interfere with a finding of fact rendered by the executing court unless the findings are so perverse or illegal or without jurisdiction. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion made by the court below that the judgment debtors had violated the decree.

7. The court below recorded the submission of the decree holders that "the violation of decree is already contained and stopped by restoring