MUTHUKARUPPA PILLAI Vs. GANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment-debtor's appeal is directed against judgment and order of the High court of Madras. The appellant was a defendant in a suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with her right as Hakdar and Pujari of two temples in Kottarakurichi village. The suit even though decreed by the trial court was dismissed by the first appellate court. But the decree of the trial court was restored by the High court, which was to the following effect:

(2.) The principal challenge to the order passed by the High court is on the nature of the decree. It is claimed that the decree being personal, it could not have been executed by the respondent who claimed to be successor-in-interest of the plaintiff in the suit. The submission appears to be devoid of any merit. In the main suit, out of which these execution proceedings have arisen, it was clearly held by the High court that the rights were heritable and partible. In view of this finding, it is not clear as to how can the appellant raise the argument of decree being personal in nature. Apart from that, the decree passed by the trial court, copy of which has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondent, the authenticity of which is not disputed by the appellant, and which has been extracted earlier, clearly indicates that the injunction granted did not impose any such restriction expressly nor could it be impliedly held that it lapsed with the death of the plaintiff.

(3.) It is then argued that the executing court committed an error of law in allowing the application of the respondent on the Will executed in his favour or the adoption deed filed by him without there being any adjudication in proper proceeding. This submission also is devoid of any merit as the High court has taken care of it and has clarified that the allowing of the application by the executing court would not preclude the appellant from challenging validity of these documents in appropriate proceedings. The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.