IMPORTANT POINT
A decree for injunction compels personal obedience and in appropriate cases, would not be enforced against the legal representatives.

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The facts of the case are as follows:

2. The petitioners are the widow and children of one Divira Bolu. The respondent is said to have filed a civil suit against Divira Bolu, seeking a permanent injunction against him from interfering with property described as follows:

“Description of the property situate in Kollur Village of Kundapura Taluk Mooli right

Sy. SD No. Kissam Extent

No. 32 5PI-P2 Converted to 0.53

non-agricultural

purpose

Boundaries:

East by : Sy. No.32/2 of plaintiff

South by : Portion of this SD sold to Surendra Shetty

West by : Plot sold to Surendra Shetty

North by : Sy. No.32/4 of plaintiff, plot of Ayyappa Nair and V.V. Iyer”

3. The suit had been contested by Bolu during his lifetime. The suit, however, was decreed as prayed for. Incidentally, the prayer in the suit was as follows:

“VI. Prayer: The plaintiff therefore prays for a decree and judgment in his favour and against the defendant.

(1) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from entering upon the suit’ A’ property and from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same ...”

4. The judgment and decree was dated 13.9.2012. It transpires that Bolu died sometime after the judgment was delivered. In April 2014, the respondent is said to have filed an execution petition against these petitioners, in their capacity as the legal representatives of the deceased Bolu, on the ground that they are interfering with his property, and that the judgment and decree against Bolu, would also be binding on them. Upon receipt of notice, the petitioners are said to have engaged Counsel who had entered appearance in the execution petition. It is stated that the Counsel sought to assert before the Court that the present petitioners had not interfered with the property of the respondent and in any event, were not bound by the judgment and decree, which was personal to Bolu, and hence the execution petition was not maintainable. The Executing Court had then heard the Counsel for the parties on the issue whether the judgment and decree in the suit, was binding on the legal representatives of the defendant and answered the question in the affirmative and is said to have directed the petitioners to file an undertaking that they would not interfere with the plaintiff’s property.

5. When the Counsel for the present petitioners, had sought to assert that the petitioners were not bound to furnish any such undertaking, this is said to have provoked the Counsel for the decree-holder to seek that the petitioners be arrested for disobedience. The Court below had then posted the matter for enquiry to enable the decree-holder to establish that there was a breach of the injunction. It is in that background that the present petition was filed. This Court had stayed all further proceedings.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the suit prayer was restricted to the defendant alone. It is hence inexplicable that the decree is sought to be executed against the petitioners, who were not parties to the suit and are certainly not bound by the decree, which was personal to the deceased defendant.

7. It is contended that the finding of the Executing Court that in terms of Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’, for brevity), the petitioners are also bound by the judgment and decree is an incorrect and unfair interpretation and seeks that the said finding be set aside as it is now evident that the Court below seeks to take coercive measures against the petitioners to enforce the decree against them.

8. It is pointed out that the deceased defendant was not sued in his capacity as the kartha or the ‘yajaman’ of his family. In fact, the petitioners are not members of a joint family, therefore, there is no basis to hold that the petitioners are bound by the judgment and decree.

9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent seeks to justify th