Judgment :- The 4th defendant is the second appellant. The matter arises in execution. The 3rd respondent obtained an assignment of the decree and sought for recognition of the assignment and execution of the decree. The 4th defendant objected on the ground that the assignment is a benami one taken by the 1st defendant in the name of his wife and that under the second proviso to R.14 of O.21 C.P.C. such an assignment could not be recognised. The Courts below overruled the objection. The 4th defendant has therefore come in second appeal. The second proviso to O.21, R.14 of the Travancore Civil Procedure Code corresponding to O.21, R.16 of the Indian Code is as follows: "Provided also that, where a decree for the payment of money against two or more persons has been transferred to one of them, it shall not be executed against the others." The words 'for the payment of money' clearly indicates that the proviso is confined, to cases of personal decrees. The proviso can therefore apply only to a case where there is a personal decree for payment of money. (Vide AIR 1932 All. 704 and 1947 TLR 603). The decree in this case is a money decree passed against the assets of the deceased Parvathy Ammal the mother of defendants 1 to 4. There is no personal decree against the 1st defendant. Therefore even if the assignment is benami as contended for by the appellant the assignee is not debarred from executing the decree on account of the second proviso in O.21, R.14. The order recognising the assignment and allowing the assignee to execute the decree is correct and does not call for any interference. The appeal is groundless and it is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.