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

1989 Supreme(Mad) 171

K.M.NATARAJAN
Chinnammal – Appellant
Versus
Nagarathinammal – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:Ethirajuly, E. Padmanabhan, N. Damodaran, P. Mani, P. Anantha Krishnan Nair, Advocates.

Judgment :-

This revision is directed against the order passed by the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing E. P. No. 1758 of 1981 in O. S. No. 1664 of 1959, filed by the revision petitioner on two grounds, namely, that the petitioner being a purchaser is not entitled to maintain the execution petition and therefore the decree for the relief of permanent injunction cannot be executed and further the decree for injunction runs with the land and cannot be executed by the purchaser.

2. As regards the first point, learned counsel for the respondent also conceded that in view of the provisions of Section 146, C.P.C. and the Explanation added to O.21, R.16, certainly the purchaser of the property which is the subject-matter of the decree, without assignment, can maintain the execution application. As regards the second contention whether the purchaser can maintain the execution petition for disobedience of the decree by injunction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner only submitted that even though there is no decision of this Court on this point, yet it cannot be said that it is a personal one as it affects the rights of parties which includes the immovable prop






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