VELAYUDHAN Vs. SUBADRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Advocate Sri. T. P. Kelu Nambiar took notice on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The judgment debtor is before this court. His case is that the order of the executing court directing delivery of the property to the respondent herein is bad in law because the respondent after the assignment of the decree, cannot be said to be 'the holder of a decree within the meaning of O.21 R.10 CPC. Only a holder of the decree can execute the decree.

(3.) The question before this court therefore is, can the respondent be said to be the holder of the decree This question to my mind, is unnecessary to be considered because the Supreme Court has recognised him as the holder of the decree as is seen from the order passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 2702 & 2703/77. Relevant portion of the order reads: --