BALAKRISHNA PILLAY Vs. VMINI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Judge has refused to give credit as part satisfaction of the decree in question to certain parts, of which two, one of Rs. 1,700 and one of Rs. 2,000, have been certified by the payee to the Court, and which sums were, it is alleged, paid by the judgment-debtor to a transferee decree holder, after transfer to him and after he had made an application for execution of the decree transferred but before order was passed on his application.

(2.) The District Judge s refusal is based solely on the ground that the transfer had not been recognized by the Court. An application for execution was made under the old Code of Civil Procedure by the transferee, but permission to execute was not given, the ground of refusal being that the decree was attached by a creditor of the original decree-holder. No Court has yet decided that the transfer is invalid, fraudulent or voidable by creditors or that, for any other reason, the transferee has no right in the decree.

(3.) It is contended before us that the transferee does not become entitled to certify satisfaction to the Court in respect of payments made to him until he has been recognized by the Court as a person entitled to execute the decree but we find nothing in the Code to support that contention. The property in the decree passed by the transfer Sadagopachariar v. Ragunathachariar 33 M. 62 : 3 Ind. Cas. 938 : 6 M.L.T. 273 and there is nothing in the old Code to require a formal recognition of that fact. The Court may permit the transferee to execute and may, no doubt, for good reason, refuse permission to execute, but the transferee s rights, do not arise from the grant of permission nor are they taken away by the refusal of permission to execute the decree; it may, no doubt, be that in some cases, a proceeding in an application for execution might result in a declaration that the transferee was not entitled to the decree, but the District Judge does not base his decision on any order which can he paid to have that effect. It is suggested that there is an order having the effect of debarring the transferee in this case from executing the decree, an order made by the District Munsif on a claim petition presented by the transferee when the decree was attached by a creditor of the original decree-holder, but we have not considered the effect of that order on the present application, preferring to deal with the case solely on the ground taken by the District Judge, and to leave all other questions open for decision in future proceedings.