Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. In a subsequent decision reported in Saila Bala Dassi v. Nirmala Sundari Dassi , the Supreme Court field that Section 146 was introduced with the object of facilitating the exercise of rights by persons in whom they come to be vested and being a beneficent provision should be construed liberally so as to advance justice and not in a restricted or technical sense.

15. The decision in Jugalkishore v. Raw Cotton Co. (1955) S.C.J. 371 : (1955) 1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 220 : A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 376, was considered by the Andhra. Pradesh High Court in Satyanarayanan v. Arun Naik (1964) 2 An. W.R. 81. The Andhra High Court in considering a case where the subject-matter of a decree was transferred after the decree was passed held that the transferee could continue the execution petition if it was already filed by the transferee decreeholder or could file a fresh execution petition on the ground that he was such a transferee under Section 146 of the Civil Procedure Code and that the provisions of Order 21, Rule 16, would not preclude the transferee from carrying on the execution of the decree obtained by his transferor, the subject-matter of which was subsequently transferred. The same view was expressed by the Patna High Court in Ram Nath v. Anardei Devi . The Patna High Court held that a person who has become entitled to the benefits of the decree not by virtue of the decree or assignment in writing but by virtue of the transfer of the property which is the subject matter of the decree in his favour, is entitled to execute the decree under Section 146, Civil Procedure Code. In Devasia v. Scaria (1960) K.L.T. 1077, the Kerala High Court held that an oral assignment of the decree in favour of the assignee was a valid transaction and that even though the assignee would not come within the purview of Order 21, Rule 16, his competency to make an application to execute the decree under Section 146 could not be denied.