King, J.

1. The question involved in this appeal is the interpretation of the expression in accordance with law in Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act. The appellant is the transferee of the decree in O.S. No. 1239 of 1926 and in February, 1936, applied to execute it. He had previously applied in November, 1934 and the learned District Judge of South Arcot has held that that previous application was not in accordance with law and accordingly dismissed the present application as barred by limitation. The reason given by the learned District Judge is that in 1934 appellant had no right to apply in execution as the deed of transfer which he then filed was unregistered and incapable therefore of effecting any transfer. Against this decision appellant appeals.

2. The decree in question was a mortgage decree and it is not, of course, contended for the appellant that in 1934 he did in fact possess any legal title to his ownership. The argument in appeal is that the requirements of Order 21, Rule 16 are satisfied by a mere assignment in writing - and in support of it I have been referred to a number of rulings.

3. I may say at once that none of the rulings cited really covers the poi