Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)

Thazhapattathillath Krishnan ... vs T.Damodaran Namboodiri on 24 February, 2005

Similarly, in the case of Krishnan Namboodiri (supra) it has been rightly held that the executing court even by invoking section 151 CPC can order delivery of possession to decree holder who is dispossessed in violation of decree of prohibitory injunction. By detention of judgment debtor in civil prison for violation of the decree, the decree holder would not get anything. The decree which has been passed by the court has to be honoured and executed. If the possession of the suit property is not delivered to respondent no. 1 decree holder, it would make a mockery of administration of justice. It is surprising that the petitioner claims that she should be allowed to continue in possession although her predecessor-in-interest respondent no. 2/JD violated the decree passed in favour of respondent no. 1 and after taking possession of the suit property from respondent no. 1 delivered possession thereof to the petitioner. In view of the decree dated 29.8.1988 passed in favour of respondent no. 1 by which the petitioner is also bound as she is claiming through respondent no. 2/JD, petitioner has no right to continue in possession of the suit property and on the other hand, respondent no. 1 Civil Revision No. 1513 of 2007 -6- decree holder has right to restoration of possession over the suit property to him and to continue in possession thereof unless dispossessed therefrom in due course of law.
Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 8 - K T Sankaran - Full Document
1