T.A. Mahommad Naina Rowther and Others vs Muhammad Hehiya Rowther and Others

Madhavan Nair, J.—The learned Judge''s view that the decree of the High Court is invalid because plaintiff 6 (one of the respondents) died

before the decree and his legal representatives had not been brought on record, is clearly wrong. The appellants should have brought the legal

representatives on record before the decree, but they did not do so. The appeal was dismissed after hearing on merits. That the decree passed in

such cases is not invalid is established beyond doubt by the decision of this Court reported in (Thamarapalli) Surya Narayana Vs. (Gopavajhala)

Joga Rao and Others, and Vellayan Chetty v. Mahalinga Ayyar (1916) 39 Mad 386. In Kashi Nath Singh v. Kailas Singh AIR 1925 Pat 480, a

case very much like the present, it was held that the decree is a valid one and can be executed if it is not barred under Article 182, Lim. Act. No

doubt the decree in that case was a consent decree, but we do not think that this would affect the principle of the decision. In this case the petition

is not barred as it falls within three years from the date of the High Court decree. The order of the lower Court is set aside with costs of this Court.

The learned Subordinate Judge will restore the petition to file and deal with it according to law.

Jackson, J.

I agree, and am very doubtful if the lower Court could have gone behind our decree which on its face is quite valid.