Judgment :- 1. The matter arises in execution of the decree. Of the two appeals A. S.412 of 1958 is by the defendants 75 and 76, while A. S. No. 465 of 1958 is by the legal representatives of the 1st plaintiff. The common respondent is the assignee-decree-holder, 4th plaintiff. 2. The decree in the case was obtained by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 on 30-12-114. It provided inter alia, for recovery by them on behalf of their tarwad of the various items scheduled, and from the defendants concerned, with mesne profits. We are concerned with the recovery of 10 acres covered by item by the 35 as against the 55th defendant and of 15 acres in items 34 and 36 from the defendants 54 and 56. These interests of the defendants 54 to 56 are now represented by the defendants 75 and 76 who are the appellants in A. S.412 of 1958. 3. On 15-4-1115 soon after the passing of the decree, a partition took place in the tarwad. There was, on that same day, also a sale Ext. P-2 in favour of the common respondent by all the tarwad members inclusive of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 of items viz. 34 to 36 and others covered by the decree with permission to implead himself in execution and recover the items from the respective judgment-debtors. Following this there were separate proceedings one by the 55th defendant and another by the defendants 54 and 56 to set aside the decree against themselves and the properties 34 to 36 in their possession. That of the 55th defendant failed altogether. But the decree against the defendants 54 and 56 was modified so as to enable them to realise the value of the improvements effected on the items 34 and 36 before being compelled to give up possession. The second decree was passed on 29 6-7-1121. 4. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 sought thereafter to ignore Ext.P-2 assignment above mentioned by entering into adjustment of the decree as against defendants 54 to 56 on basis of Ext. D-1 and D-2 dated 17-40-1121. The tarwad in fresh suit O. S. No. 129 of 1121 through a junior member also sought to displace Ext. P-2. But these attempts did not succeed. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 7-3-1951 and by the High Court on 8-12-1954. D-1 and D-2 dated 17-40-1121. The tarwad in fresh suit O. S. No. 129 of 1121 through a junior member also sought to displace Ext. P-2. But these attempts did not succeed. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 7-3-1951 and by the High Court on 8-12-1954. The E. P. No. 145 of 1123 dated 6-7-1123 filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 was rejected by the executing court on 10-12-1951 and by the High Court on 8-12-1954 to the extent covered by E. P. No. 10 of 1122 dated 12-1-1122 filed by the respondent as assignee-decree-holder. There had been no notices however issued to the defendants 54 to 56 or the defendants 75 and 76 who had come into their place under Exts. D-1 and D-2 in connection with these proceedings. So the superior right of the respondent under Ext. P-2 assignment as against the defendants 75 and 76 under Exts. D-1 and D-2 karars was once again put in issue. And because no specific orders had been passed on C. M. P. 514 of 1122 dated 20-1-1122 filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 certifying satisfaction, that petition also was tried simultaneously. The court below ultimately passed the order under appeal in conformity with the prior orders and hence these appeals. 5. A. S. No. 412 of 1958. The short question in this appeal is whether the appellants can plead adjustments under Exts. D-1 and D-2 as against Ext. P-2 assignment of anterior date. According to the court below Ext. D-1 agreement as regards the 55th defendant and item 35 was riot pleaded at all by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and it was too late for the appellants to apply for entering satisfaction thereunder. And as regards Ext. D-2 agreement concerning the defendants 54 and 56 and items 34 and 36, it had not come into effect at all because the balance consideration of Rs. 500 due thereunder on 15-11-1121 had not in fact been paid. Also that the defendants 75 and 76 knew of the title of the respondent under his assignment Ext. P-2 soon after it originated and their seeking to get the plaintiffs 1 to 3 to adjustment the decree as regards items 34 to 36 after date of Ext. P-2 was lacking in bona fides. Mr. Also that the defendants 75 and 76 knew of the title of the respondent under his assignment Ext. P-2 soon after it originated and their seeking to get the plaintiffs 1 to 3 to adjustment the decree as regards items 34 to 36 after date of Ext. P-2 was lacking in bona fides. Mr. M. Ramanatha Pillai learned counsel appearing for the appellants, strenuously contended before us that the respondent assignee-decree-holder should not be heard to object to the original decree-holder's certification of satisfaction filed in court before yet the assignment of the decree was recognised by it, and he referred to Thomman v. Abraham 1956 KLT 282. But that decision has nothing to do with this case. For it was concerned with the question how far an original decree-holder moving the executing court for realising the decree can be met by the plea that there has been an assignment of the decree and the judgment-debtor has paid off on the basis of such assignment though neither the assignment nor the fact of payment had been intimated to court, and it was held relying on Kadir Meera Sahib v. Pir Mohammed AIR. 1933 Mad. 523: There is absolutely no provision for a judgment-debtor paying a third party merely because he happens to know of the assignment of the decree in the latter's favour by the decree holder; and it is perfectly clear that, if he were to make such payment he would run the risk of having to pay money over again to the decree-holder. The decree holder is entitled to execute the decree even after the assignment so long as the assignee has not chosen to apply to the executing court because the executing court is not competent to ignore the records as it stands" Here the question is whether the plaintiffs 1 to 3, who have obtained the decree on behalf of the tarwad, had any interest in the items concerned, after the partition in the tarwad took place and themselves along with other members assigned them to the respondent. In a parallel case Krishnan v. Lakshmanan AIR 1948 Mad. 6 the facts were that in a partition between father and son, a decree obtained by the father fell to the share of the son who sought to execute it. In a parallel case Krishnan v. Lakshmanan AIR 1948 Mad. 6 the facts were that in a partition between father and son, a decree obtained by the father fell to the share of the son who sought to execute it. The judgment-debtor objected that the decree had been satisfied, though in fact it was not satisfied till the date of partition. The father filed a memorandum of full satisfaction in the execution. Rajamannar, J. delivering the judgment for the Bench distinguished Kadir Meera's case AIR 1933 Mad. 523 above referred to, and held that as the father had ceased to have any interest in the decree after the partition he had no locus standi to file the memorandom of full satisfaction and therefore it was of no avail. It follows therefore that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 had no locus standi to file memorandum of satisfaction as they did as regards the decree against the defendants 54 to 56. As a matter of fact the respondent had intimated the court about his assignment by his E. P. 352 of 1120 dated 30-12-1120, long before Exts. D-1 and D-2 came into being. Only, that execution petition was struck off because there were attachments from other suits. 6. The appeal fails in the result and it is therefore dismissed with costs. 7. A. S. No. 465 of 1958. This appeal by the 1st plaintiff's legal representative has no substance. For as we saw the matter had long ago become concluded against the original plaintiffs 1 to 3. The appeal will therefore stand dismissed with costs.