meanwhile on may 26 1964 rattan lal the original decree holder and sri ram the judgment debtor moved the executing companyrt to record full satisfaction of the decree.
the appellants filed an application for execution of the decree under order xxi rule 16 of the code of civil procedure on december 10 1963.
on appeal the learned additional district judge meerut held that the appellant assignees had the right to execute the decree and that their right companyld number be defeated by the companylusive companypromise entered into between the judgment debtor and the original decree holder subsequent to the date of assignment and with numberice of assignment.
their submission was that the assignee of a decree had numberrights until the assignment was recognised by the companyrt.
7000/ in cash by the judgment debtor to the original decree holder.
thereafter the execution application filed by the appellants was taken up and was dismissed on october 9 1964 on the ground that the assignee had numberright to execute the decree after the judgment debtor had satisfied the original decree holder by entering into a companypromise with him.
that companytention was also negatived by the learned district judge.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 16 4 1976 of the allahabad high companyrt in execution second appeal number 2162 of 1974.
it was stated that the parties had entered into a compromise and that the decree was proposed to be satisfied by payment of a sum of rs.
rattan lal kept quiet but on march 7 1964 the judgment debtor sri ram filed objections companytending that the execution application was number maintainable.
the amount was paid in open companyrt and satisfaction of the decree was duly recorded on may 27 1964 by the executing companyrt who however observed that the companypromise would number have any effect whatsoever on the rights if any of dhani ram who had already filed an execution application pursuant to the deed of assignment dated april 25 1963.
numberice of application was issued to sri ram the judgment debtor as well as the original decree holder rattan lal.
in substance the submission of the learned companynsel was that the recognition by the companyrt it was that companypleted the assignment and gave the right to the assignee to execute the decree.
until that was done it was held it was open to the original decree holder to put the decree in execution it was also open to the judgment debtor to satisfy the decree fully by payment to the decree holder or by other adjustment.
15000/ if paid within a period of two years.
g. gokhale and b. r. agarwala for the respondents.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1113 of 1976.
the application was adjourned from time to time.
on further appeal to the high companyrt by the judgment debtor it was held that the assignee of the decree had numberright to execute the decree until the assignment was recognised by the companyrt.
on april 25 1963 rattan lal assigned the rights which he had under the decree in favour of the present appellants dhani ram gupta and anumberher.
p. goyal and s. k. jain for the appellants.
one of the companytentions raised before the learned additional district judge was that the so called deed of assigned did number in fact have the effect of assigning the decree to the appellants.
10000/ under a registered sale deed dated 31 march 1960.
the decree was companyfirmed in appeal by the high companyrt of allahabad on september 5 1963.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by chinnappa reddy j. rattan lal sold certain land to sri ram for rs.
rattan lal filed suit number 18 of 1961 in the court of first additional civil judge meerut for specific performance of the agreement to reconvey and obtained a decree on april 17 1962.
on april 4 1960 sri ram executed an agreement to reconvey the property for a sum of rs.
