Peddisetti Rangayya Setti vs Guduru Venkatasubba Reddi and Others

Cornish, J.—The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition is the judgment-debtor in a suit S.C. No. 563 of 1933. The decree-holder in that

suit was judgment-debtor of the present petitioner in another suit S.C. No. 1112 of 1933. The decree-holder in the first of these suits transferred

his decree to the present respondent on July 5 : 1933. But on August 17, 1933, the petitioner and the decree-holder apparently without the

knowledge or consent of the transferee, made an adjustment of the decrees which they had obtained against one another. The adjustment was duly

certified to the Court. An agreement was drawn up between the petitioner and the transferor which recited that the decree in 8. G. No. 563 of

1933 had been transferred, and that as this transfer had not been recognised, the transferor ""should file full satisfaction, memo for the present"".

When one year later the transferee applied under O, XXI, Rule 16, for execution of the decree in S.C. No. 563 of 1933, he was met with the

objection of the judgment-debtor that the decree had been adjusted. The question is whether in the circumstances the objection can prevail. I think

it must. The lower Court in coming to an opposite conclusion has proceeded on the authority of Sadagopalachaiiar v. Ragkunathachariar 33 M. 62

: 3 I C 938 : 6 M.L.T. 279 where it was held that transfer of a decree is effective to pass the property in the decree without any formal recognition

of it by the Court. But that case, as well the two other cases cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent Balakrishna Pillai v. Muni Reddi,

(1911) 14 Ind. Cas. 702 14 Ind. Cas. 702 and Dharani Mudali v. Meenamba Bai, (1912) 17 Ind. Cas. 617 17 Ind. Cas. 617 : 12 M.L.T. 592 :

which are in his favour, belong to a period when the definition of ''decree-holder'' in the Code included the transferee of the decree. The present

definition of ''decree-holder'' is more limited. It means the person in whose favour a decree has been passed. This is the meaning which the word

must bear in Order XXI, Rule 2 providing for the recording of satisfaction of adjustment of decrees between the decree-holder and the judgment-

debtor. Until the transferee has taken steps under Order XXI, Rule Hi for sanction to execute the decree the executing Court cannot recognise any

other person than the decree-holder on record; Nayin-sikh Jayanarayana v. Seerapu Polayya 68 M.L.J. 392 : 159 Ind. Cas. 589 : (1935)

M.W.N. 203 : 41 L.W. 295 : AIR 1935 Mad. 383 : 8 R.M. 516. This may involve the position that a judgment-debtor cannot safely settle his

debt with the transferee prior to the transferee''s application under Rule 16 or that Use transferee on applying to execute his decree may find as in

the present instance that the debtor and the decree-holder have since the transfer composed the matter. But these are the risks attendant upon

taking an assignment of a decree. No doubt a transferee who fids that the decree cannot be executed because the decree had already been

satisfied or adjusted has his remedy by way of suit against his transferor. But this is a matter with which the executing Court has no concern. In the

result, therefore, 1 must allow title revision petition with costs throughout.