1. This second appeal has been preferred by the first defendant and arises out of an order in execution. The original decree-holder was one Kesava Panicker. The first execution petition was filed by him. After that he passed away. His legal representatives were impleaded as additional decree-holders 2 to 7. The rights of Nos. 3 to 7 were assigned to two persons. They filed the execution petitions seeking to execute the whole of the decree for the benefit of all the decree-holders impleading decree-holder No. 2 also as a party. Objections were raised by the first defendant. The objections pressed are (1) that the assignee decree-holders who seek to execute by themselves are not competent to execute the decree, and (2) that execution cannot be allowed without production of a succession certificate as regards personal reliefs. Both the lower courts rejected these objections.

2. We will first of all deal with the maintainability of an execution application by assignees of the rights in a portion of the decree. Here the assignees obtained only the rights of decree-holder Nos. 3 to 7. But what they sought was the execution of the decree as a whole for the benefit of themselves