ORDER : 1. The petitioners are before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 20.12.2019 in Ex.No.22/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Kollegala, by which the petitioners’ objections to the execution petition is rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the legal representatives of one Madaiah/defendant in O.S.No.121/2006 are not liable to pay the claim amount in Ex.No.22/2019. The legal representatives are the sons and daughters of one Madaiah who are defendants in the above stated suit and the suit is decreed against the said Madaiah for the amount stated in the decree but the legal representatives are not liable to pay the said amount. Learned counsel further submits that in view of Section 6(4) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the sons/legal representatives are not liable to discharge any pious obligation of any such debt. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents submits that original defendant/Madaiah died during the pendency of the suit and the petitioners/legal representatives were on record and they filed written statement to the suit and they contested the suit. The property in question belongs to the plaintiff/decree holder, whereas taking advantage of the similarity in name, the original defendant/Madaiah received compensation for acquisition of land. The trial Court in the judgment and decree held that the plaintiff/ decree holder is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he is entitled to receive the compensation amount. Thus, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners herein who are the legal representatives of Madaiah are parties to the suit in O.S.No.121/2006. The legal representatives have not challenged the said judgment and decree and it has become final. The original defendantfather of the legal representatives received the compensation taking advantage of similarity in name in respect of land belonging to the plaintiff. The petitioners herein who are the legal representatives of Madaiah are parties to the suit in O.S.No.121/2006. The legal representatives have not challenged the said judgment and decree and it has become final. The original defendantfather of the legal representatives received the compensation taking advantage of similarity in name in respect of land belonging to the plaintiff. The trial Court after trial held that with regard to the land in question the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also held that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the compensation amount in respect of acquisition of suit schedule property. In that circumstance, the petitioners/legal representatives of Madaiah are liable to pay the decreetal amount to the extent of estate of the deceased. Section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would have no application to the facts of the present case, since the legal representatives were parties to the suit. The legal representatives of the original defendant are liable to satisfy the decreetal amount to the extent, they succeeded to the estate of the deceased. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.