IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH (5TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1852 of 2010 Between: Voosetti Satyam … Petitioner And: Dangeti Babji …. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATH C.R.P.No.1852 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.12.2009 in EA No.58 of 2009 in un-numbered EP in OS No.451 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein, the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 146 read with Section 151 CPC to recognize him as assignee/transferee of the decree, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent, though served with notice. Perused the record. 3. One Siripurapu Venkatrao-decree-holder filed suit against the respondent herein for injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in OS No.451 of 1989. The respondent preferred an appeal in AS No.104 of 1997 and the same was disposed of on 19.12.2007 confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Subsequently, the said S.Venkatrao sold the property in favour of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 07.03.2007. The petitioner therefore, claims that he became the assignee and stepped into the shoes of the decree-holder. The respondent is none else than the son-in-law, who discarded his wife i.e., petitioner’s daughter, long back. The petitioner alleges that on account of the family disputes, the respondent started obstruction to the petitioner from enjoying the decree schedule property, though he is bound by the decree for permanent injunction granted against him. On 20.06.2007, when the petitioner’s son and daughter tried to remove the bushes and thorny growth on the suit land, the respondent high-handedly caused obstruction. The petitioner, therefore, filed EA No.58 of 2009 seeking recognition as assignee of the decree so that he can execute the decree for permanent injunction against the respondent. The respondent filed counter alleging that the transaction between the petitioner and S.Venkatrao is collusive. According to him, the vacant site bearing D.No.13-10-42, TS No.308, Kothapet, Kummari Veedhi, Vizianagaram is the ancestral property of himself and his brother Dangeti Apparao and after the death of their father, they succeeded to the property and subsequently on 20.02.2007 the respondent relinquished his share in favour of his brother Dangeti Apparao for a valuable consideration of Rs.50,000/- and ever since Dangeti Apparao is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same and the petitioner is not having any right, title or possession over the property. He further contended that the assignment of the decree shall be in writing or by operation of law and the petitioner being as third person, cannot apply for execution of the decree, unless, there is transfer of decree from the original decree-holder. Mere transfer of the property, which is subject matter of the suit, without transferring the decree in relation to the property, does not entitle the transferee to apply for execution of the decree. As there is no transfer of decree in favour of the petitioner, the present application is not maintainable. 4. The learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the said application on the ground that there was no transfer of the decree in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the learned Junior Civil Judge, dismissed the application erroneously following the decision of the apex Court in ‘Satyanarayan vs. Sindhu Bai Sharma’ (AIR 1965 SC P 81), ignoring the subsequent amendment made in CPC by way of adding an explanation to Order XXI Rule 16 CPC. 6. It is not disputed that the subject matter of the suit, which is described in the decree schedule is the same as the subject matter of sale deed dated 07.03.2007 executed by S.Venkatrao-decree holder in favour of the petitioner. Thus, there had been transfer of rights in the property, which is subject matter of the suit in favour of the petitioner herein. The respondent contended that the sale deed dated 07.03.2007 is a collusive transaction. The said plea is not germane in the present proceedings. Except making the allegation, the respondent has not made any effort before the executing Court to substantiate the same. In fact, no evidence was adduced by either side before the executing Court. The respondent is none-else than the son-in-law of the petitioner. It is, however, stated that there is matrimonial dispute between the respondent and his wife, who is the daughter of the petitioner. 7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner purchased the suit property from the original decree-holder and all the rights, including that of possession and enjoyment got conveyed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner being the successor in interest of the original decree-holder is therefore, entitled to protect his possession and enjoyment over the suit property. According to the petitioner, on account of the family disputes, the respondent has been trying to cause obstruction to the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment over the suit property. He therefore, seeks to execute the decree, where under the respondent has been restrained by way of injunction from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the decree-holder. The petitioner claims that he stepped in to the shoes of the decree-holder by virtue of purchase under sale deed dated 07.03.2007 and therefore, he is entitled to protect his possession and enjoyment by enforcing the decree for injunction. He filed the present application i.e., EA No.58 of 2009 for being recognized as the assignee-decree-holder. The executing Court dismissed the said application on the ground that there has been no transfer of the decree as such in favour of the petitioner and he only purchased the land, which is the subject matter of the suit. 8. Section 146 of CPC contemplates that where any proceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person, then the proceeding may be taken or application can be made by or against any person claiming under him. In the present case, the execution proceedings is sought to be taken by the petitioner claiming rights in the property under the original decree-holder. The explanation added to Rule 16 of Order XXI by way of amendment under Act 104 of 1976, reads as follows: ‘Nothing in this rule shall affect the provisions of Section 146, and a transferee of rights in the property, which is the subject matter of the suit, may apply for execution of the decree without a separate assignment of the decree as required by this rule’. 9. Rule 16 states that where a decree is transferred by assignment in writing or by operation of law, the transferee may apply for execution of the decree and the decree may be executed in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the application were made by such decree-holder. By virtue of the explanation introduced by way of amendment, a transferee of rights in the suit property may apply for execution of the decree without a separate assignment of the decree as required by rule 16. Thus, the transfer of the decree by assignment in writing as contemplated in Rule 16 is in a way dispensed with by virtue of explanation, wherein, it is clearly stated that the transferee of the rights in the suit property may apply for execution of the decree, without a separate assignment of the decree. In view of the said explanation, no separate assignment of the decree in favour of the petitioner by original decree-holder is required. When once it is shown that the petitioner is a transferee of the rights in the suit property, he may apply for execution of the decree. The executing Court has ignored the said explanation contained in Rule 16 of Order XXI CPC and erroneously dismissed the application. The impugned order is therefore, held liable to be set aside the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the petitioner in EA No.58 of 2009 stands allowed and the petitioner is recognized as transferee-decree-holder. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 05.07.2010 bss