Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant shall be allowed to profit by a "scheme (for which he himself was responsible) to defeat the provisions of Rule 16 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. One Srinivasa Aiyangar obtained a money decree against the appellant and one Idumban Chettiar. The appellant had become the surety for money owing by Idumban Chettiar and the decree was obtained in a suit filed to enforce repayment of the loan. In order to avoid execution proceedings being instituted against him the appellant paid the decree-holder, and naturally he desired to recover the amount from the principal debtor. Instead of adopting the proper course, which was to file a suit against Idumban Chettiar, the appellant arranged with the decree-holder to transfer the decree to one Murugesa Padayachi. The decree-holder, having been paid, raised no objection to this course. It has been established that Murugesa was acting as the benamidar for the appellant, who hoped that with the decree standing in the name of a stranger to the suit he would be able to execute it against Liumban Chettiar. The second proviso to Rule 16 of