The assignee of a fractional interest in the decree is fully entitled to execute the decree as one of the joint decree-holders, though it must be for the whole interest and for the benefit of all persons interested in the decree. However, for enforcing the personal reliefs granted under the decree, a succession certificate authorizing the legal representatives of the original decree-holder is necessary.

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 and decree-holder No. 2 who was also impleaded as a party. Now what is contended on behalf of the appellant is that when it is a question of the assignees representing only a part of the interest in the decree without the junction of the other decree-holders representing the other part they have no right to execute. It is pointed out that O. XXI, R.15 and 16 of the Civil Procedure Code do not recognise any such right. O. XXI, R.15 which deals with the application for execution by a joint decree-holder and R.16 which deals with the application for execution by transferee of a decree are as follows:

"R. 15(1). When a decree has been passed jointly in favour of more persons than one, any one or more of such persons may, unless the decree imposes any condition to the contrary, apply for the execution of the whole decree for the benefit of them all, or, where any of them has died, for the benefit of the survivors and the legal representatives of the decree-holder.

(2) Where the Court sees sufficient cause for allowing the decree to he executed on an application made under this rule, it shall make such order as it deems necessary for protecting the interests of the persons who have not joined in the application.

R. 16. Where a decree or, if a decree has been passed jointly in favour of two or more persons, the interest of any decree-holder in the decree is transferred by assignment in writing or by operation of law, the transferee may apply for execution of the decree to the court which passed it; and the decree may be executed in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the applications were made by such decree holder:

Provided that, where the decree, or such interest as aforesaid, has been transferred by assignment, notice of such application shall be given to the transferor and the judgment-debtor, and the decree shall not be executed until the Court has heard their objections (if any) to its execution.

Provided also that, where a decree for the payment of money against two or more persons has been transferred to one of them, it shall not be executed against the others."

Thus R.15 says that one of the joint decree-holders can apply for the execution of the whole decree though it must be for the benefit of all. If under an assignment the rights of a decree-holder passed to assignee the right to execute which one of the joint decree-holders had also would pass to the assignee of that joint decree-holder. If the contention of the appellant is accepted it would mean that the assignee from a joint decree-holder will obtain a lesser right than what the assignor himself had with regard to the execution of the decree. The question is whether there is any provision in the Civil Procedure Code which warrants such a conclusion. The wording in R.16 clear