Muthunarayana Reddi vs Balakrishna Reddi and Others

Subramania Ayyar, J.—The objection taken is that, unless all the decree-holders join in assigning the whole of the interest possessed by them under the decree, no order should be passed u/s 232, Civil Procedure Code. The decision in Kishore Chand Bhakat v. Gisborne and Co. ILR 17 Cal. 341 is an authority against this contention. Following that case, I hold that there is no prohibition in law against one of several decree-holders assigning his interest under the decree. Whether such an assignment ought to be recognised under the section of the Code referred to above and the assignee permitted to take out execution must depend upon the circumstances of each case. Here, however, I see no objection to the first respondent being permitted to execute the decree according to law. The appellant was not able to show how he would have been prejudiced by the respondent being allowed to execute the decree. The order of the District Judge was right. The appeal is rejected with costs of the first respondent.