RAM KUMAR RAM SARAFF Vs. MOHAN LAL MAHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by defendant 1 (one of the defendants first party) in a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C., which has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. It appears that defendants 15 to 19 (defendants third party) owed money to the plaintiff as well as to defendants first party. On 2 April, 1930, defendant 15 and one Meghraj, who held a power of attorney from defendant 16, executed a deed purporting to assign in favour of the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 2506 obtained by defendants third party against defendants second party. This decree was subsequently appealed against by defendants second party, but their appeal was dismissed and the decree was upheld by the Appellate Court on 7 September 1934. In 1934 defendants first party executed a decree which they had obtained against defendants third party and on 5 October 1934, they attached the appellate decree passed on 7 September 1934 in favour of defendants third party against defendants second party.

(2.) On 23 January 1935, the defendants second party paid a sum of Rs. 3369 which was the total amount due on that date under the decree attached by them and the defendants first party filed a petition of satisfaction. The plaintiff thereupon applied under Order 21, Rule 58, and claimed that the decree in question having been assigned to him in 1930, the defendants first party could not attach it afterwards in execution of their decree and that he was entitled to the sum which had been realized by defendants first party from the judgment-debtors (defendants second party) This claim was disallowed and so on 22 July, 1935, the plaintiff instituted the present suit. The suit having been decreed in the Courts below, one of the defendants first party has preferred this second appeal impleading defendants 2 to 4 as respondents in the appeal.

(3.) It may be stated here that in the suit which defendants third party, had brought against defendants second party, the judgment was pronounced on 31st March 1930, that is to say, two days before the deed of assignment, but the decree was not prepared and signed until 7 April 1930. The first point raised on behalf of the appellant is that the plaintiff did not acquire a valid title to the decree inasmuch as it was not in existence on the date of the assignment. In support of this argument it has been pointed out that the Code itself draws a distinction between a judgment and a decree and that no decree can be enforced until it has been prepared and signed. I think however that a complete answer to this contention is provided by Order 20, Rule 7 which provides that the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.