1. The first question to be decided in this appeal is whether the assignment pendente lite of the decree of an original court carried with it the right to execute whatever decree may be passed in appeal. We hold that it did in this case, under the present Code of Civil Procedure at any rate.

2. The change of language in Order 21 Rule 16 compared with SECTION 232 in the old Code is significant. It evidently arose out of the decision in Muthunarayana Reddi v. Balkarishna Reddi (1896) I.L.R. 19 M. 306 : 6 M.L.J. 172.

3. It shows that what is really transferred when a decree is assigned is not the decree itself but the interest of the decree-holder in the decree. The word interest must mean the interest as finally determined. Order 22, Rule 10(1) contemplates such an assignment of interest being made during the pendency of a suit (suit including appeal vide Sub-clause 2 and Rule 11) and the continuance of the suit or appeal by the assignee. The mention in Ex. A., the deed of Assignment, of the fact that the decree was under appeal clearly indicates the intention of the parties that all rights under the decree should pass. The assignees (respondents) 2 to 23 in this court) in thi