Judgment :- 1. This appeal arises out of a proceeding in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 2158 of 1110 and the execution application giving rise to it must be dismissed on the short ground that the court cannot allow the decree to be executed for a fractional share of the decree debt. 2. Respondent 1 obtained the above decree for rents and profits of certain properties and the decree gave a charge on the holding. He instituted the suit which gave rise to the decree as the head of a Hindu joint family and pending the suit the family effected a division whereby the claim put in suit was equally distributed among the three branches of the family. Under that division Respondent 1 got only a onenineth share but none of the allottees came forward to get themselves impleaded in the suit and the decree as it stands is one passed in favour of Respondent 1 alone. The present execution petition was filed by Respondent 1 and another member of the family (Respondent 2) who under the partition referred to became entitled to a one-third share. The execution sought is only for a third share in the decree. The question for our decision is whether such execution can be allowed. Our answer is in the negative and that is sufficient to dispose of this appeal. 3. In support of our view reference may be made to the decisions in (1889) I.L.R. 16 Cal. 341; (1913) I.L.R. 35 All. 204; (1920) 55 I.C. 981 (Lahore); A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 600 (F.B.) and A.I.R. 1934 Born. 59. These decisions show a marked divergence of judicial opinion on the question whether there can be an assignment of a part of a decree and as to whether such an assignee can be allowed to execute as a joint decree-holder. The Allahabad, Lahore and the Bombay High Courts take the view that there cannot be such an assignment and that an assignee of a part of the decree cannot be allowed to execute the decree as a joint decree-holder. The Calcutta and Madras High Courts take a different view that there can be an assignment of a part of the decree and the assignee can be permitted to execute the decree for himself and the other part-owners. The Calcutta and Madras High Courts take a different view that there can be an assignment of a part of the decree and the assignee can be permitted to execute the decree for himself and the other part-owners. But all these High Courts are agreed that there cannot be an execution for a fractional share of the decree-debt. 4. This, no doubt, is not a point raised in the Court below or by the arguments of the learned Counsel for the judgment-debtor appellant, but the question came up for discussion at the Bar when the appeal was argued. A disposal of the appeal on the above ground makes it unnecessary for us to deal with the questions raised in the argument. Whether any one other than respondent 1 can execute the decree without respondent 1's conjunction must even according to the decision in AIR 1946 Born. 272 cited before us by the learned Counsel for the respondent depend on the terms or language of the partition deed and when that is not before us we do not venture to pronounce any opinion whether the Court of execution should follow that decision of the Travancore High Court reported in 25 TLJ 1125 cited by the appellant's counsel. Whomsoever the execution Court allows to execute the decree sufficient safeguards should be made to protect the interest of all the persons interested in the decree including the transferee of respondent 1's one-nineth share. With these observations we allow the appeal and hold that no execution can be allowed to proceed on the basis of the application to the court below. We make no order for costs of this appeal. Appeal Allowed.