The central legal point established in the judgment is that Section 47, Civil P.C. bars a separate suit when the objections to the transfer of a decree have already been adjudicated by the executing court.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The question in this second appeal is whether Section 47, Civil P.C., operates as a bar to the maintenance of the suit instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that the transfer of a decree obtained by defendant 1 against him in favour of defendant 2 is invalid. Both the lower Courts took the view that it does not. This view is canvassed in second appeal. The question is whether it is sound. The material facts bearing on the question are these: Defendant 1, Rednam Sitaramiah obtained a decree in S.C.S. No. 208 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsifs Court of Amalapuram on 9th August 1926 against the plaintiff Potula Venkataramayya and another. Defendant 2 obtained a transfer of the said decree on 17th February 1927, under Ex. 3-A, and as the transfer deed was defective, a later transfer was effected on 12th March 1927, under Ex. C. In pursuance of that transfer defendant 2 applied on 22nd March 1927 for leave to execute the decree Under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P.C. The judgment-debtors oppose the application for execution. Their grounds of objection are these. On 22nd July 1926, one Pundareekashadu obtained a decree in S.C.S. No. 29 of 1926 on the file of the Sub-Court, Bezwada, against Rednam Sitaramayya, the decree-holder in S.C.S. No. 208 of 1926, the assignor of defendant 2. On 3rd February 1927, the said Pundareekashadu assigned the decree to Potula Venkataramayya, the present plaintiff, i.e. one of the judgment-debtors in S.C.S. No. 208 of 1926. In pursuance of the transfer he applied for leave to execute the said decree in S.C.S. No. 29 of 1926, got a transfer of the said decree to the District Munsifs Court of Amalapuram and attached the decree in S.C.S. No. 208 of 1926. Both the judgment, debtors in S.C.S. No. 208 of 1926 alleged that the transfer of the said decree in favour of defendant 2 was nominal and collusive and without consideration and was brought about to defraud the rights of Potula Venkataramayya under the decree in S.C.S. No. 29 of 1926.

2. Two questions were raised, namely whether the transfer in favour of defendant 2 was collusive and bears no consideration and whether he was only a name lender for the decree-holder Sitaramayya. The learned Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram overruled the objections of the judgment-debtors and upheld the transfer by his order dated 14th March 1928. Thereupon Potula Venkataramayya instituted the present suit against Rednam-Sitaramayya, the decree-holder in S.C.S. No. 208 of 1926 and Chintalapudi Venkataramayya, defendant 2, in whose favour the assignment of the said decree has been effected, for a declaration that the transfer was a sham and collusive transaction brought about in fraud of his rights and therefore invalid. The question therefore on these facts is whether such a suit is maintainable. The grounds on which the lower Court decided the case are two, namely: (1) that the objection raised by the plaintiff to the transfer before the Sub-Court, Amalapuram, in proceedings Under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P.C. was not in the capacity of the judgment-debtor and therefore Section 47, Civil P.C., would not apply; and (2) the matter decided by the executing Court was not one relating to execution because it relates to the factum and the validity of the assignment. The relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code bearing on the matter are Order 21, Rule 16 and Section 47 (3). Order 21, Rule 16 provides that Where a decree has been transferred by assignment in writing", which is the case here, 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 application was made by the decree-holder.

3. Where therefore such an application for execution is made by a transferee, it is open to the judgment-debtor to say that he is not a representative of the decree-holder on the ground that there is no valid transfer and no ve