CHINNAMMAL Vs. NAGARATHINAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing E. P. No. 1758 of 1981 in O. S. No. 1664 of 1959, filed by the revision petitioner on two grounds, namely, that the petitioner being a purchaser is not entitled to maintain the execution petition and therefore the decree for the relief of permanent injunction cannot be executed and further the decree for injunction runs with the land and cannot be executed by the purchaser.

(2.) As regards the first point, learned counsel for the respondent also conceded that in view of the provisions of Section 146, C.P.C. and the Explanation added to O.21, R.16, certainly the purchaser of the property which is the subject-matter of the decree, without assignment, can maintain the execution application. As regards the second contention whether the purchaser can maintain the execution petition for disobedience of the decree by injunction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner only submitted that even though there is no decision of this Court on this point, yet it cannot be said that it is a personal one as it affects the rights of parties which includes the immovable properties. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent drew the attention of this Court to a decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in Somnath Honnappa Bennalkar v. Bhimrao Subrao Patil, ILR (1974) Kant 1506, where it was held as follows:-

(3.) The Court below also relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in Jamsetji Manekji Kotval v. Hari Dayal, (1908) ILR 32 Bom 181, wherein it was held that an injunction does not run with the land and therefore in the circumstances of the case, there was no bar to the plaintiff's suit. Learned-counsel for the respondent also drew my attention to a decision of this Court reported in Mallammal v. Marimuthu Boyan, (1969) 2 Mad LJ 482, the head note of which runs as follows: