PRABHAKARA ADIGA versus GOWRI & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 724 · Decided: 20-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
E 
F 
G 
-H 
[2017) l S.C.R. 724 
PRABHAKARA ADIGA 
v . 
. GOWRI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 30,07-3008 of2017) 
FEBRUARY 20, 2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 50 - legal representative -
Decree for permanent injunction - Executability of against the legal 
repfesentative of judgment-debtor - Held: Decree for injunction 
can be executed against legal representatives of the deceased 
judgment-deb/Or - When the right litigated upon is heritable, the 
decree would not normally ab9te and can be enforced by LRs. of 
decree-holder and against the judgment-debtor or his legal 
representatives - It would be against the public policy to ask the 
decree-holder to litigate once over again against the legal 
representatives of the judgment-debtor when the cause and 
injunction survives. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Section 50 CPC deals with execution of decrees 
of all kinds including that of permanent injunction. Section 146 
CPC provides that where any application which can be made by 
or against any person, it may be made by or against any person 
claiming under him except as otherwise provided in the Code. 
Order 21 Rule 32 provides the mode for execution of decree for 
injunction, restitution of conjugal rights and specific performance. 
Seetion 50 CPC which is a specific provision with respect to 
execution of decree against leg.al representatives, would be 
attracted read witl! Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. It is crystal clear 
from a perusal of seetion 50(2) CPC that a decree for-permanent 
injunction can be l'xecuted against the judgment debtor or his 
legal representatives. [Paras 11, 12] [731-G-H; 732-A-C) 
1.2 The right which had been adjudicated in the suit in the 
instant matter and the findings which have been recorded as basis 
for grant of injunction as to the disputed property which is 
heritable and partible would enure not only to the benefit of the 
724 
PRABHAKARA ADIGA v. GOWRI & ORS. 
legal heir of decree-holders but also would bind the legal 
representatives of the judgment-debtor. It is apparent from 
section 50 CPC that when a judgment-debtor dies before the 
decree bas been satisfied,. it can be executed against legal 
representatives. Section 50 is not confined to a particular kind of 
decree. Decree for injunction can also be executed against legal 
representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. The maxim 
"actio persona/is moritur cum persona" is limited to certain class 
of cases and when the right litigated upon is heritable, the decree 
would not normally abate and can be enforced by LRs. of decree-
holder and against the judgment-debtor or bis legal 
representatives. It would be against the public policy to ask the 
decree-bolder to litigate once over again against the legal 
representatives of the judgment-debtor when the cause and 
injunction survives. No doubt, it is true that a decree for injunction 
normally does not run with the land. In the absence of statutory 
provisions it cannot be enforced. However, in view of the specific 
provisions contained in section 50 CPC, such a decree can be 
executed against legal representatives. [Para 26] [743-D-H] 
1.3 The impugned order passed by t.be High Court is set 
aside and the direction issued by the executing court that an 
undertaking be furnished by the legal representatives to abide 
by the decree is proper, failing which the executing court would 
·· proceed in a permissible mode in accordance with law to enforce 
the decree under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. 
[Para 27] [744-A-B] 
Shivappa Basavantappa Devaravar v. Babajan 1.999 
(4) Kar. L.J. 293 - disapproved. 
Muthukaruppa Pillai & Am: v. Ganesan (1995) Supp 3 
SCC 6~; Ramachandra Deshpande v. Laxmana Rao 
· Kulkarni AIR 2000 Karnataka 298; Kanhaiya Lal v . 
. Babu Ram (dead) by LRs. & Anr. (1999) 8 SCC 529; 
G.M. Venkatappa v. Anjanappa & Anr. ILR 2006 
Karnataka 4456; Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain 
Choudhary AIR 1967 SC 1124 ; l%7 SCR 93; D 'souza 
J v. Mr. A. Joseph AIR 1993 Karnataka 68; Rajappan 
and Ors. v. Sankaran Sudhakaran AIR 1997 Kerala 
725 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
726 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
315; Krishnabai Pandurang Salagare v. Savlaram 
Gangaram Kumtekar ·AIR 1927 Bombay 93; Amrit/a/ 
Vadilal v. Kantilal Lalbhai AIR 1931 Bombay 280; 
Ganesh Sakharam Saraf v. Narayan Shriram Mu/aye 
AIR 1931 Bombay 484; Manila/ la/lubhai Patel v. 
Kikabhai lallubhai AIR 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.