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