RAJAPPAN Vs. SANKARAN SUDHAKARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by the legal representatives of the second judgment debtor in OS No. 227 of 1975 on the file of the Munsiff's Court of Punaloor. The respondent decree holder obtained a decree against the second judgment debtor, the father of the revision petitioners, their brother who figured as the first judgment debtor, and their mother who figured as the 3rd judgment debtor for a perpectual injunction restraining the judgment debtors from trespassing into the decree schedule property, taking income therefrom, destroying the boundaries thereof and from interfering with the right of the decree holder to take income from the property and from in any manner causing disturbance to his possession. The Execution Petition, EP 118 of 1985 was filed against judgment debtors 1 and 3 and the other legal representatives of the second judgment debtor, the father complaining that they had violated the decree granted to the decree holder. An objection was filed by the legal representatives of the second judgment debtor contending that since the decree was one for injunction the decree holder was not entitled to execute the decree against the legal representatives of the second judgment debtor. They also denied that they have done anything against the terms of the decree.

(2.) An enquiry was conducted by the executing Court in the execution petition. That court held that the legal representatives of the second judgment debtor were responsible for cutting a tree from the decree schedule property in violation of the decree. Observing that such violations of decree should be dealt with seriously the executing court issued a warrant for the arrest of the revision petitioners. It is this order that is challenged in revision by the legal representatives of the deceased second judgment debtor.

(3.) When the revision came up for hearing before the Single Judge, reliance was placed on the decision in Kathiyammakutty Umma v. Karappan ( 1988 (1) KLJ 411 ) by the decree holder and the decision in Makky Chandran v. Sudhakaran (CRP No. 2543 of 1984) by the judgment debtor on the question whether the decree could be executed against the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor. The learned Single Judge felt that there was a conflict in the views expressed in the two decisions referred to above and consequently adjourned this case for being heard by a Division Bench. That is how this revision has come before us.