The assignee of a debt is entitled to execute the decree eventually passed in favor of the assignor, even though the assignment did not convey the future decree.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore releasing certain property from attachment in a Claim Case.

( 2 ) HINDUSTHAN Commercial Bank Ltd. , the petitioner before us is the owner of a money decree against opposite party 2, Makhan Lal Ganguly passed in Suit No. 1464 of 1049 by this Court in its original jurisdiction. The Bank in execution of this decree attached another decree which was passed in favour of Makhan Lal Ganguly against the Chinese Tannery Owners' Association and others in Title Suit No. 142 of 1953 (Originally numbered as Title Suit No. 75 of 1950) of the Court of the 1st Subordinate Judge, Alipore. Thereupon, opposite party 1, Lakshmi Narayan Saha filed a petition under Rule 58 of Order 21, Civil P. C. for the release of the attachment. Lakshmi Narayan Saha claims title to the attached decree by virtue of a deed of assignment dated 30-10-1951. This deed was executed by Makhan Lal Ganguly in favour of Lakshmi Narayan Saha during the pendency of Title Suit No. 75 of 1950 subsequently numbered as Title Suit No. 142 of 1953. By this deed Makhan Lal Ganguly assigned his claim in the above suit. The deed refers to the several bills made out by Makhan Lal Ganguly on the Chinese Tannery Owners' Association in respect of the claim in the suit and the operative part of the deed reads thus :"the Assignor doth by these presents assign, transfer and convey all his right, title and interest and claim into or against the said bill or bills payable by the Chinese Tannery Owners' Association".

( 3 ) ON a careful reading of the Deed of Assignment we are of opinion that the decree to be passed in the pending Title Suit No. 75 of 1950 (subsequently numbered as Title Suit No. 142 of 1953) was not assigned by this deed.

( 4 ) IN spite of the Deed of Assignment Lakshmi Narayan Saha did not get himself substituted as plaintiff in place of Makhan Lal Ganguly and allowed Makhan Lal Ganguly to obtain the attached decree in his favour.

( 5 ) THE effect of assignment of a debt by a creditor pending a suit for recovery of the debt and the consequences of allowing the assignee to proceed with the suit and to obtain a decree are discussed in Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd. , 1955 SCR 1369: ( (S) AIR 1955 SC 376) (A ). The Supreme Court unanimously held that the assignee of the debt was entitled to execute the decree eventually passed in favour of the assignor, even though the assignment did not convey the future decree. The Supreme Court was also unanimous in the opinion that there was no assignment of the decree in writing. As to whether there was assignment by-operation of law there was diversity of opinion. Das J. was of the opinion that there was no such assignment. Bhagwati J. was of the opinion that the assignee of the debt could claim to he the transferee of the decree and could apply for the execution of the decree under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P. C. Imam J. reserved his opinion on the question. Both Das and Imam JJ. were of the opinion that the assignee of the debt was entitled to apply for execution of the decree under Section 146, Civil P. C. as persons claiming under the decree-holder. I regard the observations at pages 1404 to 1405 (of SCR): (at pp. 394-395 of AIR) as the ratio of the majority decision. Das J. observed thus : The transferors no longer had any right title or interest in the subject matter of the suit. The transferors, therefore, proceeded with the suit although they had no longer any interest in the debt which was the subject matter of the suit and which had been transferred by them to the respondent Company, In the premises, in the eye of the law, the position of the transferors, vis-a-vis the respondent company, was nothing more than that of benamdars for the respondent Company and when the decree was passed for the recovery of that debt it was the respondent Company who were the real owners of the decree. As between the respon