P. SOMARAJAN
Satheesh, S/o Padinjaroot Veetil Late Kuttappan – Appellant
Versus
Suresh, S/o Padinjaroot Late Kuttappan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
It is a case wherein a decree for specific performance was granted, which was upheld by the first and second appellate court, thereby it has become final and conclusive. Later on, a sale deed was executed in execution of the decree and the same was engrossed on stamp paper. The petitioner is the 6th respondent in E.P.No.137/2010. Under the impugned order, the execution court directed delivery of the property based on the sale deed executed. It is under challenge on the ground that no notice as mandated under Rule 16 of Order XXI C.P.C. was issued and that the decree was executed not in compliance with the requirement under that provision. Further, it is submitted that an assignee of the decree is bound to follow the mandate under that provision by issuing notice in execution of the decree both to the transferor and the judgment-debtor. But in the instant case, what is involved is a testamentary succession and hence, the question whether a testamentary succession though involves transfer of interest would come under the purview of Order XXI Rule 16 C.P.C. requires consideration.
2. In order to resolve the issue, it is necessary to have an understanding with respect to the s
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.