THANKAMMA Vs. JOHN GOVT SERVANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P. No. 57 of 1994 is filed by the judgment debtors 2 and 3 while C.R.P. No. 438 of 1994 is filed by some of the legal representatives of the deceased decree holder, the challenge in both the revisions being against the order in E.P. No. 95 of 1991 in O.S. No. 182 of 1977, on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur.

(2.) The suit was filed by one Maria Nadanial for declaration of title and possession over the plaint schedule property and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of, and enjoyment of the property by, the plaintiff or from trespassing upon the property or destroying its boundaries or committing any waste therein. The trial court decreed the suit declaring the plaintiffs possession over the plaint schedule property. A decree for injunction was also granted as prayed for. However, the prayer for declaration of title was not granted by the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff was not the absolute owner of the property and that there are other persons having co-ownership rights. The defendants challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court in appeal and Second Appeal unsuccessfully.

(3.) The legal representatives of the decree holder filed E.P. No. 95 of 1991 to execute the decree. The reliefs prayed for in the execution petition include the arrest and detention of defendants 2 and 3, to compel them to obey the decree, and to detain them in civil prison till they obey the decree. There is also a prayer to remove defendants 2 and 3 from the decree schedule property and to attach the properties of defendants 2 and 3 in order to compel them to obey the decree; and to sell the said properties, in case they fail to obey the decree.