conveyance of his interest to a third party, the Court can take no notice of such alleged transfer. Khetter Mohun Chuttopadhya v. Issur Chundra Surmah and others, S. W. R., 11. 271.

A Court executing a decree has no other discretion with regard to noting a transfer of it than that herein given, and this section only applies to cases where the transferree can and does come forward to claim execution for himself instead of the original decree-holder Bharut

Chunder Roy v. Nawab N. A. Khan
Bahadoor, ib. X. 354.

The purchaser of an ex-parte decree strongly tainted with fraud cannot be entitled to profit by it. Doolar Jha v. Runjeet Roy. ib. XV. 340, A vakeel by his ordinary employment as vakeel enjoys no authori ty authorising him to transfer a decree. Nohur v, Jaffer Hossein N. W.-P. 1870. 195.

In Jadoo Nath Rai v. Ram Bux Chetlangee S. W. R, VIII. 203, it was held that where a party who assigned over a decree was liable on account of a cross decree for a considerable sum to the judgment-debtor, the Court was justified in refusing to allow one of them to assign the decree to a third party, until the respective liabilities of the two parties had been settled. Where S. obtained a decree for possession against D. P. the person in possession and subsequently in a suit brought by J. P. claiming the property against S., a decree was passed in the terms of a compromise, whereby S., consented that J. P. should execute his (S.'s) decree Held that J. P. was entitled, to recover possession in execution of S.'s decree from D. P., although D. P., had not been made a party to the second suit. Doorga Pershad Singh v. Lalla Juggun Nath Pershad. N.-W. .P. (Allahabad) I. 34.

(t) An assignee is not in the same position as the original decree-holder and is not entitled to have the same privileges; he can only enforce a decree assigned to him if the Court see fit. Shama Puddo Dutt v. N. C. Ghose 15. S. W. R., 283. See, however, S. W. R., VII. 205 which says:

This section puts a party to whom a decree is transferred into the position of the original decreeholder, and entitles him to have the decree executed, as if application were made by the original decree-holder. Shamanud Surmah v. Shumboo Chunder Dass. When a judgment-creditor seeks to attach and sell a decree alleging that its assignment was not bona fide, and the conveyance purports to be one of property specified in sec. 301, it is the duty of the Judge, to inquire whether the assignee was or was not in bona fide possession. If the Judge inquire into the facts, no appeal lies from his order. If he refuses to make enquiry, the High Court, under its general powers of superintendence, can and ought to require the Judge to do so. Grees Chunder Lahori v. Kashee Suree Dabia, ib. VIII. 26.

Where a mortgagee obtained a decree against his mortgagors for the payment of the mortgage money, and in default for the sale of the mortgaged property, and his heir afterwards executed an assignment of the decree for valuable consideration to the plaintiff, who proceeded to execute the decree by sale of the mortgaged property. Held that the assignment was a document of which the registration was compulsory. Gopal Narayan v. Trimbak Sadasheo. B. L. K., Bom. I. 267.

(u) Where a decree-holder, who had obtained a decree in the Civil Court

of Loodhiana, which had been transmitted to Seharanpore for execution, assigned his decree before the Seharunpore Court to a third party without the knowledge or consent of the Loodhiana Court, and monies were paid to the purchaser by the judgementdebtor on such assignment, and the assignment was subsequently, on objection being taken, sanctioned by the Civil Court of Loodhiana; held, that, although such moneys were paid under an irregular sanction of the Saharanpur Court, yet that, as at the time of payment the purchaser was undoubtedly entitled to receive them, and the irregularity of the procedure of the Saharanpur Court had since been cured, and the purchaser was now in a position to execute the decree, it would clearly be inequitable not to order the refund of the money on the score of irregularities. Mohun Lall, v. Baroo Mull. N.-W. P. 1874. P. 69. (v) This section contemplates only the case of a person who, being alive when the decree is passed, dies before execution has been fully had. The representatives of Griendra Nath Tagore v. Hurro Nath Roy, S. W. R., X. 455. A suit was instituted against A. and carried on to final decree. It turned out that A. had died before the plaint was filed. Under these circumstances it was held that this section did not enable the plaintiff to take out execution against his personal representatives. Porendronath Tagore v. Hurronath Roy, S. W. R., X. 455.

A defendant, against whom damages had been decreed on account of malicious conduct towards plaintiff, appealed to the High Court; but, before the case came on for hearing, died. Upon this M. sought to be substituted for the deceased appellant, not as his legal repre

sentative otherwiset han as having purchased a share in his property, and in consequence liable to be injuriously affected, if the plaintiff proceeded to execute the decree which he had obtained in the lower Court. Held that the dena pana clause in M.'s deed of purchase from deceased did not make M. liable to pay so purely personal a debt of deceased as that which the decree created, and consequently M.'s only title to be legal representative failed, Macleod v. Kunhya Sahee S. W. R., IX. 271.

A representative's claim to property attached, that she holds it not in a representative character, but in her own right falls within this section, it is a matter between parties to the suit relating to the execution of the decree and one to be determined under sec. 244. Amirunnissa Khatoon v. Mir M. Hossein Chaudhr. S. W. R., XII. 65. This was also held by Privy Council in the case Choudhry Wahed Ali v. Musst, Jumaee B. L. R., XI. 149.

The representative capacity of a party applying to execute a decree on behalf of a minor ceases with the minor's death. Further steps must be taken by the deceased's legal representative. Huldhur Roy Chaudhri v. J. M., S, W. R., XIV. 162. Held that the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff in a suit which has abated upon his death, is liable for the costs of an interlocutory order. Syed Muhammad Ali Khan v. Prince Zoheemoodeen. Bourke, 154, (x) Execution cannot issue against the estate of a deceased person if there is no one representing it. Lekrai Roy v. Becharam S. W. R., VII. 52. If execution has once been duly issued against a person as representative of a deceased, such person cannot dispute his representative character on the occasion of any

subsequent issue of execution against him as representative in the same character. Maha, D.N. C. v. Musst. Piaree Dasi. 8, W. R., VI. Mis. 61. (y) An objection by a representative that he has taken nothing by inheritance however valid is not an irregularity contemplated in Sec, 311, and must be raised before the sale in execution of the decree has taken place. Chaudhry Sheikh Wahed Ali v. Musst. Jumaee. S. W. R., VI. Mis. 116.

pay

When a defendant against whom a decree has passed in his representative capacity, has made ments in satisfaction of the decree to the full value of the property of the deceased which has come, or, but for the default of the defendant, might have come, to his hands, the decree can no longer be executed, even although the decree-holder may be able to prove that the defendant still has in his possession property which originally belonged to the deceased. Ram Gholam Dobey v. Ayma Begum S. W. R., XII, 177.

Where execution is ordered to be tak

en out against the estate of a deceased judgment-debtor, and the property is sold, the representative of the debtor cannot be called to account in execution for the mesne profits of the property while in his hands. Muzhur Ali v. The Nawab Nazim. S, W, R., VII. 308. If defendants fail to satisfy a Court

that they duly applied all property belonging to a deceased, this section will be put in force against them to the extent of such property not properly applied. The provisions of the Code relative to execution against a living debtor are not applicable after he is dead. By his death his property passes from him, and if it is still liable for the debt, the transferree should be put on the record instead of the deceased, The transferree

cannot be treated as holding benami for the dead man. Sirfun Bibi v. Collector of Sarun. S. W. R., X. 199.

The proper course under this section is to call upon the decree-holder to prove what property has passed into the possession of the representatives, and then to see whether or not it had been duly applied; and if it had not, whether there was any remainder of that property that could be made liable. R. Roodro N. Roy v. Nittea Nund Das (in which case a Court went entirely wrong.) S. W. R., VIII. 195.

Where a representative fails to satisfy the Court that he has duly applied such assets he may be arrested in execution of the de cree Maharajah D. M. C. v. Man Mohiny Dassee, S. W. R., XIV. 517. (2) In a suit against the representatives of a deceased obligor of a bond, if plaintiff makes it the foundation of his case that defendants were in possession of property belonging to the deceased, they have a right to take issue upon that statement, and if they succeed, are entitled to a decree freeing them from responsibility altogether; but if plaintiff prays for a decree without going into the question of assets, he will be entitled to a decree on proving the execution of a bond. Hira Lall Mookerjee v. D. Kaloonee ib. XIV. 431.

When successive applications for execution have been made against a person as representative merely, execution cannot be taken out against him personally as a codefendant, even if he were liable in both capacities. Prem Lal Gossamee v. Hossein Ooddeen ib. XIII. 36.

(a) The application must contain a reasonably accurate description (Nga Tha Tha v. Burn S. W. R., XI. 8); it need not be accompanied by a copy of the decroe. Dhanpat Sing v Lilanand Singh. S. W. R., XI. 28. and if there be more than one debtor, it may be executed against any one whom the decree-holder may select. (see however s, 232) Kristo Kishor Chakarbati v. Ram Lochan Murdhan S. W. R., II. 49 Mis.

If a Court should attempt to execute a decree in which it has no jurisdiction, the plaintiff who applied for execution would be liable to be sued in an action of damages Doyle v. Dwarkanath Chuttarji, S. W. R., VIII, 88.

If execution is had against the wrong party, and he pays the money in order to avoid arrest or sale of his property, he can recover it back in a suit. Kazi Ramzan Ali v. Maharajah Soorajbhan, S. W. R., VIII. 88. (b) This section does not contemplate any enquiry before the Court whether the property, belongs to the judgment-debtor or not; seizure of personal property, in execution of a decree, is not an act of the Court, but one of the party himself seeking execution for which he is liable, if any trespass be committed on the property of a stranger. Mussamut Sujan and others v. Sheikh Sariatullah, 3 B. L. R., 413.

(c) The description required by this section is merely a reasonably accurate description. Nga Tha Tha v. Burn XI., ib: (F) B.) 8. (d) In Madras according to District Judge of North Malabar it is not correct to speak of those who are registered to revenue as being registered as proprietors, for it does not follow that those so registered are the proprietors, and the Revenue Authorities do not

profess to treat the "puttadar" or person in whose name the revenue is assessed as proprietor. He is the one to whom Government looks for the revenue, and a not unfrequent defence set up by Collectors, when actions are brought against them for granting waste lands is, that, in doing so their only object is the collection of the revenue, and that they gave the land as far as they were concerned and entered the revenue in the putta, which they granted to the applicant, because he is the most eligible person. There is this much of title bestowed by the Collector on such an applicant that by throwing up the land the former "puttadar" parts with all the rights he possessed, but the grant by the Collector would not affect the rights of any one claiming the land on the ground that the original puttadar had not a proper title.

The Calcutta High Court direct that:

(n) All orders by all Civil Courts for the attachment of estates shall be immediately notified to the Collector of the district within which such estates are situated. The notification is to be made in every case without exception, in which such property is attached in execution of a Civil Court's decree. The above notification does not however, supersede the written order which is required to be fixed up in the office of the Collector, when land, or any interest in land is attached. 2. Whenever attachment is legally and formally withdrawn, such withdrawal shall in like manner be notified to the Collector in all cases of the same description.

When any Civil Court attaches landed property paying revenue to Government and appoints a manager information of the fact should be always given to the Collector without delay.

U. C. O. C. H. C. p. 57.