Execution of decree can be sought by the person succeeding the decree holder.

1. The revision petitioners herein being legal representatives of one Sangameswaran, Decree holder in O.S.No.62 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudalur, have filed E.P.No.43 of 1995 contending that the respondent/Judgment debtor had violated the decree for permanent injunction and had consequently prayed for assistance of the Court for the arrest and imprisonment of the respondent as provided under Order 21, Rule 32 C.P.C. In the Execution Petition itself the petitioners had contended that the petitioners as legal heirs of the Decree holder -Sargameswaran, are entitled to execute without any separate application, under Order 21, Rule 16 C.P.C. The Execution Petition was however resisted by the respondent on the ground that he was not in occupation of the suit property and that the Execution Petition as filed without complying with the requirements under Order 21, Rule 16 C.P.C. was not maintainable. A Commissioner was appointed to submit a report regarding the nature and identity of the property.

2. While disposing of the Execution Petition, the .learned District Munsif, did not discuss or render any Specific finding on the issue as to whether there was any violation of the decree entitling the petitioners to obtain an order under Order 21, Rule 32 C.P.C. But rejected the Execution Petition only on the ground that it was not maintainable without the compliance of the requirements under Order 21, Rule 16 C.P.C. Hence, the Revision Petition.

3. The objection of the respondent which found favour with the learned District Munsif is as regards whether the legal representatives of the Decree holder should apply for execution of the decree to the Court which granted decree under Order 21, Rule 16 C.P.C. Order 21, Rule 16 C.P.C. is as follows:-

"16. Application for execution by transferee of decree-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 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."

4. On the basis of the said provision, the respondent contended that without seeking for two specific orders under Order 21, Rule 16 C.P.C, the petition as filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner while stating that the order of the learned District Munsif was not maintainable, contended that Section 146 C.P.C. entitled the petitioners to file the Execution Petition directly without the necessity to obtain any substitution as contemplated under Order 21, Rule, 16, C.P.C. He also relied on several judgments to sustain his point.

5. On the other hand Mr. Ilango appearing for the respondent/Judgment-debtor would mainly rely on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Narayanan v. Panchanathan, A.I.R. 1940 Mad. 89 and that of a judgment of K.M. Natarajan, J. reported in Chinnammal v. Nagarathinammal, A.I.R. 1990 Mad. 249. In the judgment reported in Narayanan v. Panchanathan, A.I.R. 1940 Mad. 89 it is true that the Division Bench has held that the appellants being the legal representatives of the deceased Decree-holder, they were not decree-holders as defined in Section 2 C.P.C. and that although the sons may well have been entitled along with the decree-holders to the benefits of the decree,