Justice K. Harilal of Kerala High Court in O.P.(C) No. 3877 of 2011 dated 6th day of February, 2014 held that "Decree granting injunction directing the owner of the land to do or prohibiting him not to do a particular act or thing in the plaint schedule property is binding on the subsequent assignees and such decree cannot be said to be purely personal against the original judgment debtor alone, as it is a restriction on enjoyment of the property against which the decree is passed."

The Court also held that,

"The general principle of law founded on the doctrine of res judicata, lis pendens, etc., is that an assignee or a legal representative is bound by the decree obtained against the assignor or the predecessor in interest. This general principle is further seen recognized by Sec.146 of the CPC, Order 21 Rule 16 and the Explanation to that Rule, of the CPC, Sec.11 and Sec.50 of the CPC.

Sec.146 of the CPC reads as follows:

"146. Proceedings by or against representatives.- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any law for the time being in force, where any proceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person, then the proceeding may be taken or the application may be made by or against any person claiming under him".

Sec.146 of the CPC was introduced for the first time in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the object of facilitating the exercise of the rights by person in whom they come to be vested and against whom an obligation or liability is cast, by devolution of assignment. This beneficial provision must be construed liberally so as to advance the object of the provision and that not in restricted or technical sense. Once a dispute with respect to the property is settled by a decree, it must be binding on assignees or legal representatives of both parties in the suit as the case may be. There shall not be any second litigation in respect of the same right over the same property on same cause of action. 

In K. Umma v. T.K. Karappan (AIR 1989 Kerala 133), this Court held that in a suit for injunction the decree can be executed even against the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor even in a case where the decree is for injunction. 

The Apex Court in the decision in Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd., (1955 (1) SCR 1369) held that the assignee of the debt could execute the decree obtained by the assignor of the debt by invoking Sec.146 of the CPC provided that proceedings could be taken against any person claiming under him also. 

In Zila Singh V. Hazari [AIR 1979 SC 1066], the Apex Court held that, even in a case of pre-emption decree, the decree could be executed by assignee of the property in view of Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 

In Rajappan v. Sankaran Sudhakaran (1997 (1) KLT 748), this Court held that a decree granting perpetual injunction against trespass, taking income or destroying boundaries and against interfering with the right of decree holder to take income and causing disturbance is binding on legal representatives of deceased and those who claim through or under him.

The principle embodied in Sec.52 of the Transfer of Property Act is to avoid multiplicity of litigation on the reason that the owner of the property had parted with the right and possession over the property pending adjudication of the lis. 

It is to be borne in mind that, even before the passing of the decree, where any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with any party to the suit or person so as to affect the right to any other party thereto, under any decree or order which may be passed therein except the authority of the court. 

In short, if the decree that may be passed is binding on the pendente lite assignee, there could be no difficulty in holding that the decree for injunction obtained by the plaintiff with respect to a property is binding on the assignee of the property, after passing of the decree. 

Coming to Sec.11 of the CPC the basic principle is that there must be a finality for every litigation and a matter in issue once decided by a court of competent jurisdiction is binding not only on the same parities in the suit but also parties under whom they or any of them claim or litigating under the same title. 

In Ifthikar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali (AIR 1974 SC 749), the Apex Court held that when the cause of action for the second suit is merged in the judgment of the first one, it does not survive any more. Thus, res judicata oust the jurisdiction of the court itself. 

In Chothy Theyyathan v. John Thomas (1997 KHC 90) relying on the decision in Saila Bata Dassi v. Nirmala Sundari Dassi (1958 SCR 1287) and other various decisions. Court held that:

"It must also be noted that the decree for injunction granted in this case is one relating to the decree B schedule property and preventing certain activities being carried on therein to the prejudice of the decree holder. Such a decree cannot be said to be purely personal against the original judgment debtors in the sense that it is not related to their obligation not to do anything in the decree schedule property. 

It is really a restriction on enjoyment of the decree B schedule property and such a restriction would obviously bind the assignees of the original judgment debtors and could be enforced by the decree holder. Here, the decree was obtained by the decree holder for the more beneficial enjoyment of his own property, namely, decree A schedule and in enforcement a right claimed in him to restrain the enjoyment of the decree B schedule property belonging to the judgment debtors for the more beneficial enjoyment of his own property. 

I am of the view that, in such a situation, there is nothing in law which compels the court to take the view that the decree holder should go in for another suit against the transferee of the judgment debtor to continue the beneficial enjoyment which he has already secured by a decree, and the obligation imposed by the decree is lost on transfer of his property by the judgment debtor or when the transfer is effected by the judgment debtor during the pendency of that litigation".

In the light of the above discussions, it can be held that decree granting injunction directing the owner of the land to do or prohibiting him not to do a particular act or thing in the plaint schedule property is binding on the subsequent assignees and such decree cannot be said to be purely personal against the original judgment debtor alone, as it is a restriction on enjoyment of the property against which the decree is passed. 

Needless to say, such decree is binding on subsequent assignees and it can be enforced against them also. The decree holder shall not institute fresh suit on each and every occasion of assignment in view of the general policy of law well founded on principles underlying in various laws. In short, such decree runs with the land, notwithstanding the change of ownership."