ANDI VASUDEVAN OF AZHIKKAKATHU Vs. BHAGAVATHIPILLAI VASUDEVAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the 8th defendant is against the order of the lower appellate court rejecting his objections to the executability of the decree. The execution court had allowed his objections. The decree in the case which was sought to be executed was passed on 14-4-1117 against the first defendant alone. In the plaint a charge was also claimed on the plaint property, which was purchased by the first defendant from the plaintiff. The amount claimed, it was alleged, represented balance of purchase money. Defendants 2 to 5 were impleaded as subsequent encumbrancers. The suit was decreed as prayed for on 1-8-1113. At the second defendants instance, the decree was reopened and it was again decreed on 3-11-114 on the same terms. Thereafter, the third defendant applied to have the decree reopened which was done on 3-12-1115 and the suit was once again decreed on 14-4-117 as against the first defendant alone. It was further stated in the decree dated 14-4-1117 that the suit in so far as it prayed for a decree charged on the plaint properties was dismissed.

(2.) The first defendant died on 16-7-1114, i.e. between the dates of the first two decrees passed in the case. His legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 6 to 8 on 5-10-1116.

(3.) The decree holder, in execution, attached certain properties in the hands of the appellant alleging that they are properties that belonged to the deceased first defendant. This was objected to by the appellant on the ground that there was no decree passed in the case which was executable either against him or the properties in his hands. This contention, as was mentioned earlier, was not accepted by the lower appellate court, though it found favour with the execution court.