Source: https://advocatemmmohan.com/2017/02/22/executability-of-decree-for-permanent-injunction-against-the-legal-representatives-of-judgment-debtor-resultantly-we-allow-the-appeals-set-aside-the-impugned-order-passed-by-the-h/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 05:18:07+00:00

Document:
plaintiff got converted the land for non-agricultural/residential purposes.
wooden fence and made an effort to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff.
ownership and possession. The conversion order of land was also illegal.
found to be in possession of Schedule ‘A’ property on the date of the suit.
injunction was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 13.9.2012.
incapable of enforcement against them as the judgment debtor had died.
against the legal heirs of the judgment-debtor.
civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both.
principal officers thereof, or by both attachment and detention.
pay the balance (if any) to the judgment-debtor on his application.
representatives, would be attracted read with Order 21 Rule 32 CPC.
certain extent. The writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed.
judgment-debtor as well. Similar is the decision in G.M. Venkatappa v.
executability of the decree for permanent injunction arose.
application to limited kinds of causes of actions. In Girijanandini Devi v.
Court was incompetent to pass a decree for account against their estates.
the relief granted could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory.
appropriate cases would not be enforced against the legal representatives.
who take under an alienation pending the execution proceedings.
representative by proceeding under Order 21, Rule 32.
with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
and are liable to be proceeded against in execution”.
for the same relief stands barred.
down the correct proposition of law and is overruled.
AIR 1931 Bom 484, Dayasbhai v. Bapalal (1902) 26 Bom 140, Vithal v.
Bom 280 : (1931) 33 Bom LR 266. Code of Civil Procedure 1882, s 260).
(1902) 26 Bom 140; Vithal v. Sakharam, (1899) 1 Bom LR 854; Jamsetji v.
AIR 1927 Bom 93 : (1927) 51 Bom 37).
the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor, if he dies.
Previous Post The case of the applicant is that they are carrying on business in manufacture and sale of salt since the year 1976 in the name and style as “AKAR Enterprises”. The trade mark “AKAR” with a particular artistic work, 2 design and get up and fonts for marketing of salt adopted by the applicant and has become distinctive on the ground of long and continuous use and acquired reputation and goodwill. The applicant had obtained the registration of the trade mark “AKAR” under No.556425 and 556426 in class 30. =there is enormous delay of 10 years in filing their present application in spite of knowing very well that the first respondent is continuously using the impugned trade mark “AKASH” right from the year 1999 and even as per their admission to the effect that they came to know about it from 14/03/2009 but they have not raised their little finger to file the present application and to take any action. It is seen that even the Civil Suit was filed only in the year 2009 in OS No.4431/2009 on the file of Additional City Civil Court, Bengaluru and the present application is filed only after nine years. It is pertinent to note that both the applicant and first respondent are having their business place in Bengaluru and also in the same area at New Tharagupet and such being the position it is unimaginable to state that the applicant came to know the use of impugned trade mark only in the year 2009. Considering all these aspects we are of the firm view that the first respondent is entitled to invoke the provision under section 33 in respect of the effect of acquiescence though the learned counsel for the applicant took pain to contend the present facts would not make out the case of acquiescence. In view of the above said reasons we are unable to countenance such contention. In view of the aforesaid reasons the ORA/82/2014/TM/CH is hereby dismissed.
Next Post When the Court is called upon to interpret the documents and examine its effect, it involves questions of law. It is, therefore, obligatory upon the High Court to decide such questions on merits. = whether the suit property is self-acquired property of late Sk. Noor Mohammad and, if so, whether respondent No.1 was entitled to inherit the same as his legal representative in accordance with the shares defined in the Mohammedan Law and secondly, whether the suit property is self-acquired property of the appellant (defendant No.1) on the strength of documents filed by him and, if so, whether it has resulted in excluding respondent No.1 to claim any share in such property as an heir of Sk. Noor Mohammad, was required to be decided by framing substantial questions of law in the light of proved documents filed by defendant No.1 because it was his case that the suit property was his self-acquired property. The High Court unfortunately did not examine any document for deciding the ownership issue in relation to the suit property.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.