INGUVA SARASWATHI Vs. VEMPATI KONDAVADHANULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Subordinate Judge seemed to have taken an untenable view that the decree as framed entitled the decree holder to execute against the personal property of the legal representative. When an objection was raised against the proposed action, he says:

(2.) IN the teeth of this clear provision and also in the teeth of this clause. 3 of the decree itself which says that the mesne profits are confined to and arise in respect of the plaint schedule properties, the proposed action of the executing court is wholly unwarranted and the execution cannor proceed against the person or the personal properties of the legal representative of the 9th respondent -petitioner. IN the circumstances, there is absolutely no necessity to amend the decree. The petitions are dismissed. Petition dismissed.