DUVVURU BALASUBRAMANYA REDDY MINOR Vs. DUVVURU MUNUSWAMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judges Court, Nellore dated 14-2-1956 in A. S. No. 53 of 1955 setting aside the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore dismissing E. P. No. 243 of 1954 in O. S. 155 of 1948 on the file of the Sub-Court, Nellore and remanding the matter to the latter Court for fresh disposal.2. The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are briefly as follows :3. Duvvuru Pankajakshamma, 4th respondent in the appeal, obtained a decree for Rs. 682-4-0 on 31-7-1951 representing the costs allowed to her in O. S. 155/48 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court Nellore against the present appellant. The appellant paid her the full amount due towards costs and subsequent interest to the decree-holder (4th respondent herein) and obtained a receipt on 7-9-1954. The decree-holder also filed a full satisfaction memo into Court of the Subordinate Judge, which passed the decree.4. The 1st respondent in this appeal Duwuru Munuswami Reddi, claiming to have obtained a transfer of the decree from the 4th respondent herein filed E. P. 243 of 1954 on 23-8-1954 praying for the recognition of the transfer of the decree in his favour and for an order for the execution thereof, by attaching and bringing the immoveable properties of the judgment-debtors to sale. The petition was opposed by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors who pleaded that the transfer in question was not for consideration and was merely for collection, that in any event as the decree-holder in whose favour the decree of the Court had been passed, was paid in full the decree amount, there was no scope for any proceedings by way of execution to be taken in the matter, and therefore the execution petition filed should be dismissed.5. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the transferee-decree-holder is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the execution petition, as the decree itself has been satisfied by the payment of the full amount covered by the decree to the decree-holder and full satisfaction having been received by the decree-holder in question. So holding, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the execution petition in question.6. On appeal, the learned District Judge of Nellore formulated the following as the only point for consideration in the matter, namely : "Whether after assigning a decree, the original decree-holder can give a valid discharge of the decree by receiving the amount from the judgment-debtors without reference or notice to the transferee decree-holder."He held that the original decree-holder transferred the decree in question to the appellant before him on 12-7-1954 by executing the transfer deed, that (therefore she had no locus standi to receive or give full satisfaction of the decree after the said transfer. So holding, he set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing E. P. 243 of 1954, and remanded the case to the Court of First Instance, namely, the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore, for fresh disposal, after enquiring whether the transfer to the petitioner (transferee of the decree) is supported by consideration, or whether it is a nominal one as contended by the original decree-holder. The present appeal is against this judgment and order of the learned District Judge.7. The point for consideration formulated by the learned District Judge does not correctly represent the point that arises for determination in the matter, on the respective contentions of the parties. The question that really falls to be considered in this case is ; whether a payment made by a judgment-debtor to the decree-holder, who had obtained the decree in the case, does not amount to a payment under the decree within. the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 1, C. P. G.?8. It is only when the answer to this question is yes that the question whether the execution petition would require to be considered on its merits and should be ordered, would fall to be determined. Otherwise, that is. if the answer is that the above-mentioned payment amounts to a valid payment under Order XXI, Rule 11, C. P. C., the decree must be regarded as satisfied and the 1st respondent who claims to be an assignee for the decree-holder cannot obtain any relief on the basis of the transfer of the decree in his favour, by way of execution.9. A few further facts having bearing on the issue for determination in this appeal, may require to be noticed :10. The decree in this case was obtained on 31-7-1951 in the trial Court, namely, Sub-Court, Nellore for Rs. 682-4-0 representing the costs of the suit as already stated. Steps were taken to execute the decree by filing E. P. 138/52 on 30-7-1952, which was dismissed. Again another execution petition was filed on 3-9-1953 which was also dismissed, as sale batta was not paid. Subsequently on 7-9-1954, as aforesaid, the 1st judgment-debtor (the appellant herein) paid a sum of Rs. 700.00 to the decree-holder (4th respondent herein) and a receipt was obtained to that effect. On the same day, a memo was filed by the decree-holder into Court representing that she has received Rs. 700.00 in full satisfaction of the decree, and that it may be regarded by the Court that the decree has been fully satisfied.Some time before this, on 13-7-1954 the decree-holder (4th respondent herein) executed a deed of transfer in favour of the 1st respondent purporting to transfer the decree in his favour for a consideration of Rs. 500.00. In pursuance of this transfer deed, the 1st respondent, claiming to have obtained an assignment of the decree under the said deed. Bled as previously stated, the present execution petition (E. P. No. 243/54) under Order XXI, Rules 16, 54 and 66 C. P. C. on 23-8-1954, praying that the transfer of the decree in his favour may be recognised by the Court and the immovable proper ties set out in the schedule belonging to the judgment-debtors may be attached and sold in execution of the decree in question. Notice of this application was ordered returnable by 13-10-1954. On that date, the original decree-holder as well as the 2nd and 3rd judgment-debtors, that is, the respondents 2 and 3 herein, entered their appearance, and subsequently Bled counters claiming that the decree has been satisfied and that no execution could be ordered. It was therefore contended in the counter that the alleged transfer in favour of the 1st respondent herein could not be recognised, and no execution can be allowed to take place in pursuance of the decree, which has been satisfied.It is also claimed In the counter that the transfer of the decree in favour of the 1st respondent by the decree-holder was not for consideration, and was only for collection, for the benefit of the original decree-holder and that therefore the transfer by itself did not confer any rights independent of the rights of the decree-holder herself. In any case, it is pointed out that the judgment-debtor paid the decree amount to the decree-holder bona fide, the amount due under the decree, which, as per the Courts records and as per the directions in the decree, she was entitled to be paid.11. The learned counsel for the appellant re-lied on Kadir Meera Saheb v. Pir Mahomed, 64 Mad LJ 732 : AIR 1933 Mad 523, Subramaniam v. Ramaswamy, 62 Mad LJ 562 : (AIR 1932 Mad 372), (FB) and Puthiandi Mameed v. Avalil Moidin, ILR 20 Mad 157, in support of the contention that the judgment-debtor was bound to make payment to the decree-holder, who ostensibly is entitled to the decree amount, that any assignment by the decree-holder could only take effect and become operative on the transfer of the decree having been recognised by the court and an order for execution of the decree having been made. In 64 Mad LJ 732 at p. 734 : (AIR 1933 Mad 523 at p. 524), Walsh J. observed as follows :