Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.

1. The rule of law that, where a persons name appears on the face of the record as judgment-creditor and execution of the decree is sought by a transferee of the decree, the decree cannot be executed unless it comes within the words of Order 21, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and there has been an assignment in his favour either in writing or by operation of law seems to me to be no rule for holding that a person otherwise a stranger to the Court can come forward and allege that the decree was not his (the transferees) and that he was a benamidar for himself. The learned Judge probably felt himself bound by Manikkam v. Tatayya (1898) ILR 21 M 388 : 8 MLJ 48, but I entertain no doubt whatever that that case was wrongly decided and was an unwarranted departure from, and an extension of the words of, the statute. And I accordingly come to the conclusion that this appeal must be allowed with costs in this Court as well as in the Court below.

2. I may add that the circumstances of the case which was allowed to crawl on to the very last day of a long period of limitation are extremely suspicious. But all that we are concerned with is the s