1. One Sitaram Desai filed O.S. No. 52 of 1967 against Bhimrao Subrao Patil, the respondent, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In that suit, a compromise decree was passed on 16th October, 1967, restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The decree - holder Sitaram Desai subsequently sold the suit property to the present appellant Somnath Honappa Bennalkar. The decree - holder also assigned the compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 52 of 1967 in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, the assignee of the original decree - holder presented Execution case No. 74 of 1968 on 16th March, 1968 in the court of the Munsiff, Belgaum and sought execution of the compromise decree under Order XXI R.16 read with Order XXI R.32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent - judgment - debtor resisted the execution application on various grounds. He contended that the sale of the land as well as the assignment of the decree are illegal and invalid. It was, therefore, contended that the execution petition is not maintainable. The respondent - judgment - debtor denied that he has trespassed or encroached on the suit land, as alleged by the appellant. The learned Munsiff overruled the objections and ordered attachment of the movables of the respondent - judgment - debtor. The respondent then preferred an appeal in the Court of the Civil Judge. The learned Civil Judge allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the lower Court to dispose of the case afresh, after deciding the question regarding validity of the sale and assignment of the decree and after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The said order of remand made by the Civil Judge was challenged by the respondent in this Court in M.S.A. No. 120 of 1968. By an order dated 14th August, 1969, this Court dismissed the appeal of the respondent. Thereafter, the learned Munsiff considered the matter afresh as per the order of remand and the observations made by this Court while dismissing the appeal of the respondent against the order of remand. The learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the sale of the property as well as the assignment of the decree are legal and valid. He held that the assignee from the decree - holder is entitled to execute the decree. The learned Munsiff, therefore, ordered attachment of the movable of the judgment - debtor. That order of the learned Munsiff was challenged by the respondent in appeal before the Civil Judge, Belgaum. The learned Civil Judge allowed the appeal of the respondent - judgment - debtor and dismissed the execution application. Hence, this execution second appeal by the applicant, the assignee of the decree - holder.

2. Shri A.V. Albal, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Court below was not competent to examine the validity of the assignment of the decree in view of the order passed by this Court on an earlier occasion in M.S.A. 120 of 1968. Shri Albal submitted that in view of the order passed by this Court, the only question that the Munsiff was required to examine was as to whether there was in fact an assignment of the decree, which examination was required to be done by the executing Court only after the judgment - debtor produced the affidavit of the original decree - holder saying that there was no assignment of the decree. As already mentioned, this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent - judgment - debtor against the order of remand made by the Civil Judge. It is clear from the order of remand made by the learned Civil Judge that the executing Court was required to decide afresh the questions regarding the validity of the sale deed and the assignment of the decree, after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. As t