The executing Court is bound to allow execution at the instance of the transferor even after the date of the transfer, till the transfer is recognised by the Court.

1. This appeal is from an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cocanada who held that an execution petition filed on 15th July, 1927, was barred by limitation. It was contended before him that a previous execution petition, namely, E.P. No. 78 of 1925 filed.on 26th October, 1925, which is Ex. E, was an application in accordance with law made to the proper Court for execution and saved limitation and hence the execution petition in question was not barred by limitation by Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act. The facts of the case quite shortly are that the original decree-holder was one Ramanarayana Daga. He filed an insolvency petition in Calcutta and was adjudged insolvent, his properties therefore vesting in the Official Assignee of Calcutta. The Official Assignee of Calcutta sold all the debts due to the original decree-holder from others, and the present appellant, the execution-petitioner in the lower Court, purchased all those debts. There is an assignment deed Ex. G by the Official Assignee of Calcutta, dated 12th September, 1925, and registered on 16th September, 1925. It was on the strength of Ex. G that the appellant filed his execution petition on 15th July, 1927. That petition was objected to by the first judgment-debtor in the decree on the ground that it was invalid and as before stated, the lower Court upheld the objection. The grounds of the objections are that E.P. No. 78 of 1925 filed on 26th October, 1925, was signed by the original decree-holder, namely, Ramanarayana Daga, who on the date was an insolvent and whose assets had therefore vested in the Official Assignee and further that the original decree-holder did not disclose to the Court that he was an insolvent or that he was not the right person to present the execution petition. One further fact has to be stated and it is that the appellant here, having taken an assignment of the suit debt in favour of the insolvent from the Official Assignee of Calcutta, gave a power-of-attorney to the insolvent, the original decree-holder, to collect the debts in question and Ex. E does not refer to the power-of-attorney or show that it was filed on behalf of the appellant. The power-of-attorney is dated 23rd September, 1925. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge thinks that Ex. E evidences a fraudulent transaction as it was filed at a time when the original decree-holder had absolutely no interest in the decree and that it was void in law and cannot be a valid application which saves the decree from the bar of limitation. He says that the facts relating to the insolvency of the original decree-holder and the sale of the debts were suppressed and were not made known to the Court. For these reasons he finds Ex. E not a genuine execution petition and that it cannot be relied upon to save the decree from the bar of limitation. In this case the insolvency of the original decree-holder does not cause any complication for the reason that the Official Assignee had parted with all interest in the decree debt which he had sold in auction to the appellant for the benefit of the creditors in the insolvency. In this case we are merely concerned with the positions of the original decree-holder and the appellant, the assignee of the decree debt. The appellant had taken no steps upto that time to get himself recognised as the transferee-decree-holder. The only person in whose favour the decree was, on the face of it, was the original decree-holder and the executing Court was bound to regard him as the person entitled to execute the decree and could regard no other person as such. In Jasoda Deye v. Kirtibash Das I.L.R.(1891)Cal. 639 it was held that the person appearing on the face of the decree as the decree-holder is entitled to execution unless it be shown by some other person that he has taken the decree-holders place. In Ari Chetty v. Theerthamalai Chetty (1916) 3 L.W. 521 a decision of Sadasiva Aiyar, and Moore, JJ., it was held that when the transferee of