CHINNA VEL NAICK Vs. VENKATARAMA NAICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole point for determination in this second appeal is whether E.P. No. 522 of 1927 is an application in accordance with law to the proper Court for execution or to take some step-in-aid of execution. The facts leading up to this essential point are stated by the District Munsif in his fourth paragraph.

(2.) The application is to bring on to the record the heir of the 2nd plaintiff, and the legal representatives of the 1 defendant, and then to realize the decree on behalf of the 1 plaintiff. Apparently it was alleged in the body of the application that the 1 had obtained an oral transfer of the right of the 2nd plaintiff, and since decrees cannot be orally transferred the E.P. was finally dismissed as invalid. It is, therefore, argued by the appellant that there was no application in accordance with law. But it must be noted that apart from the transfer the 1st plaintiff had his own right under the decree and was entitled to apply to the proper Court to have the necessary legal representatives brought on to record. So far the application is in accordance with law, and the bringing on of these legal representatives was a step-in-aid of execution. It is argued, however, that this bringing on would only be a step-in-aid of execution, in so far as it is a step-in-aid of the application for execution which was invalid, as though the Art. ran, an application in accordance with law for execution or to take some step-in-aid of the aforesaid application for execution in accordance with law. The Art. does not run in that way, and in construing the statute of limitation it is a recognised practice not to read into it more than it contains. 1 should hold, therefore, that the Lower Appellate Court has rightly decided the matter.

(3.) It remains to see whether this view is shaken by the relevant case-law.