Section 47 Civil Procedure Code applies to disputes between joint decree-holders or between one of the decree-holders and the representative of the other, as well as to disputes which arise after the decree has been executed.

Chopra, J.

1. The only point involved in this second execution appeal is with respect to the application of Section 47 Civil Procedure Code.

2. In a partition suit, Sansar Chand appellant and Jawahar Lal obtained a joint decree for possession against Sham Lal respondent. According to the terms of the decree, they jointly were to get possession of a room on the ground-floor and another on the first-floor of the building in question. Sansar Chand on his own behalf and for the benefit of his co-decree-holder, Jawahar Lal, took out execution of the decree on 30th August, 1954. The usual warrant was issued, Sansar Chand was placed in possession of the property on 10th October, 1954.

3. Only a few days before the execution application was presented, viz, on 20th August 1954, Jawahar Lal had transferred by gift his share of the decretal house in favour of Sham Lal, the judgment-debtor. The very day the execution was taken out, Sham Lal objected to the execution of the decree by Sansar Chand, on the basis of the gift in his favour. It was submitted that Sansar Chand was not entitled to separate possession, but only to joint possession with the judgment-debtor. No action was taken on his objection, except that a notice for 20th November 1954 was issued. In the meantime, Sansar Chand got exclusive possession of the house on 10th October, 1954. On 14th October, 1954, Sham Lal submitted another application on the same allegations praying that the possession delivered to Sansar Chand be restored back to him.

4. The executing Court held in favour of the judgment-debtor with respect to the factum and validity of the gift, but refused his prayer on the finding that the dispute was one arising between joint decree-holders and not between decree-holder on the one side and judgment-debtor on the other. Though not stated in so many words, what the executing Court meant to say was that for the said reason Section 47 Civil P. C. did not apply and therefore Sham Lal was not entitled to approach the executing Court for recovery of possession, his remedy being by way of a separate suit. Both the applications of Sham Lal were consequently dismissed.

5. In appeal by Sham Lal, District Judge, Jullundur upset the finding of the executing Court, held that Section 47 Civil Procedure Code was applicable and directed that "the property in question should be delivered back to the judgment-debtor Sham Lal." Sansar Chand has now come in appeal against this order.

6. Shri K.C. Nayar, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that Section 47, Civil Procedure Code is not applicable for two reasons, (i) that the dispute is not one arising between the parties to the suit, and (ii) that the dispute does not relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, On the first point, his contention is that Sham Lal by obtaining the gift in his favour. became the representative-in-interest of Jawahar Lal and was thus relegated to the position of a decree-holder. Any dispute relating to or on the basis of that gift between him and Sansar Chand would be a dispute arising between the two joint decree-holders. One of the essential ingredients of Section 47 Civil Procedure Code is that the question for decision of the executing Court must have arisen "between the parties to the suit," which means that the one should have been arrayed against the other in the suit. Mr. Nayar, therefore, concludes that a dispute between two joint decree-holders or between one of the decree-holders and the representative of the other would not fall within the requirements of Section 47 In support of his argument the learned counsel relies upon a number. of authorities, Annamalai Mudali v. Ramaswami-mudali AIR 1941 Mad 161 (FB) (A), Bagyalaksh-mi Ammal v. Bappu Aiyar, AIR 1946 Mad 90 (B); Munshi Rai v. Rup Narain, 103 Ind Cas 724 (2): (AIR 1927 Pat 288) (C); and Siva Parva Tham-ma v. Krushna Chandra, AIR 1956 Orissa 53 (D).

7. So far as the position of law is concerned, there