IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 785 of 2003(I)
1. P.NARAYANAN, ALUVILA VEEDU, KOMALAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. R.SREEDHARAN, SREE NARYANA MANDIRAM,
... Respondent
2. SATHEESAN, S/O.BHASKARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :08/01/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
C.R.P. NO. 785 OF 2003
---------------------
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008
ORDER
This revision petition is preferred against the order of the
Munsiff, Punalur, in EA 1/00 in E.P 141/88 in OS 296/86. The
original decree holder has obtained a decree against the defendant
in the suit restraining the defendant from trespassing into the plaint
schedule property to use the Shaka house of the SNDP in the plaint
schedule property or to disturb the character of the plaint schedule
property etc. The original plaintiff died and additional plaintiffs have
obtained the decree. The decree holders moved an application
against the defendant as E.P 141/88 for enforcement of the decree.
In the meanwhile, on 3.8.02 the judgment debtor died. It is true that
a decree for injunction can be executed against the legal
representatives on death of the original debtor relying on a decision
reported in Kathiyammakutty Umma v. Thalakkadath Kattil
Karuappan and Ors. [AIR 1989 Kerala 133]. But now the proposed
respondents are not at all the legal representatives of the deceased
judgment debtor and the suit is not filed under Order I Rule 8 in a
C.R.P. NO.785/03 2
representative capacity for claiming reliefs over innumerable number
of persons. Therefore, It may not be possible to enforce the decree
against these persons since they are not parties to the decree and
that the decree is not binding on them. The approach of the court
below in dismissing the EP 141/88 as well as the EA1/00 cannot be
found fault with.
Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
C.R.P. NO.785/03 3