Vencatramaniah vs Venkatachinulu and Another

Abdur Rahim, J.—In this case what was transferred was not the whole maintenance decree, but only that portion of it which related to the

arrears of maintenance that had already accrued due, that being the only portion of the decree which could be transferred. The question is, whether

the transfer should be recognised by the Court u/s 232, Civil Procedure Code. It is contended that transfers contemplated u/s 232, Civil

Procedure Code, are transfers of the whole decree, and that transfer of a portion cannot be recognised. Kishote Chand Bhakat v. Gisburne and

Co. 17 C.v 341 which was approved in Muthttnarayana Reddi v. Balkrishna Reddi 19 M.k 306 is against this view, and we are prepared to

follow it. The transfer then may be recognised if the Court thinks the case is a proper one. We see no reason in this case why the transfer should

not be recognised. The transfer is of all the arrears due up to the date of the transfer, and it is not shown that the judgment-debtor will be, in any

way, injured. As to the contention that the decree for maintenance cannot be transferred that contention can have no force in so far as the transfer

of the decree in respect of arrears accrued is concerned, and that is all that has been transferred. We dismiss the appeal with costs.