UMRAO SINGH Vs. PAHLAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of an execution proceeding. A simple money decree was passed in favour of the respondent. Pahlad Singh, against the appellant Umrao Singh. Under a private award delivered out of Court, the rights under this decree were transferred to Pahlad Singh's creditor, Mt. Sagia, on 4 June 1931. THIS award was made a rule of the Court on 27 November 1931. Before this happened, namely on 23 November 1931, Pahlad Singh applied for the execution of the decree against the appellant. The judgment-debtor (appellant) took the objection that inasmuch as under the award the interest of the decree-holder had been transferred to Mt. Sagia, the execution could pot proceed. Before the matter was disposed of, Mt. Sagia, under a deed of relinquishment, re-transferred the rights given to her in the decree to the respondent, Pahlad Singh. The Court below has dismissed the objection on the ground that, inasmuch as the alleged transferee did not get her name substituted, the original decree-holder was entitled to go on with the execution.

(2.) IT seems to us that the view taken by the Court below is perfectly correct. On the face of the decree, Pahlad Singh is the person entitled to execute it. Private transactions outside the Court cannot be recognized by the execution Court when the alleged assignee has not come forward to claim such right and get her name substituted. If this were allowed, the result would be that an execution Court would be compelled to go behind the decree in many cases and start an investigation as to the way in which interest has. devolved on other persons not before it. IT is significant that under Order 21, Rule 10, Civil P.C., when the holder of a decree desires to execute it, he shall, apply to the Court which passed the decree whereas with reference to transferees, Order 21, Rule 16, merely says that, where the interest of any decree-holder in a decree is transferred by assignment, the transferee may apply for execution of the decree to the Court which passed it. There is nothing in the provisions of Order 21, which debars the original decree-holder, whose name appears on the face of the record, from executing the decree merely because there has been some assignment1 out of Court which has not yet been recognized by the execution Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.