JUDGMENT :- This appeal arose under following circumstances: 2. Dispute relates to bhumidhari plots 325, 335, 336, 337 and 338 measuring 7 bighas 10 biswas situated in village, Hafizabad Mewla, Pargana and Tahsil Meerut, District Meerut. 3. Admittedly Ratan Lal was bhumidhar of the aforesaid holding which was sold for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under registered sale deed dated 31-3-1960 to Sri Ram, appellant. An agreement about the aforesaid holding was also executed by Shri Ram appellant in favour of Ratan Lal on 5-4-1960 to reconvey this holding on payment of Rs. 15,000/- within two years. 4. When Shri Ram did not reconvey the plots to Ratan Lal in pursuance of the deed of reconveyance. Ratan Lal filed suit 18 of 1961 against Shri Ram for specific performance. The claim was decreed by the trial court on 17-4-1962; First Appeal 125 of 1962 preferred by Shri Ram against the said decree was dismissed by the High Court on 5th September, 1963. 5. Pending that appeal Ratan Lal assigned his rights in the decree for specific performance in favour of Dhani Ram Gupta and Firm Dasi Ram Shri Krishna through a registered sale deed dated 25th July, 1963 for a sum of Rs. 45,375/- 6. After dismissal of first appeal 126 of 1962 Dhani Ram Gupta and Firm Dasi Ram Shri Krishna as assignees of the decree for specific performance applied to the executing court under O.21, R.16 of the Civil P.C. for execution of the decree vide execution case 72 of 1963 in the court of First Addl. Civil Judge, Meerut. Notices of this application were issued to Shri Ram and Ratan Lal and 7-3-1964 was fixed for hearing of the execution application on merits. 7. Pending the disposal of that application, 72 of 1963, Ratan Lal also applied for execution of the decree in the executing court against Shri Ram despite the assignment made by him in favour of Dhani Ram Gupta and Firm Dasi Ram Sri Krishna. That application of Ratan Lal was registered as execution case 35 of 1964 in the court of 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Meerut. A compromise took place on 26-3-1964 between Shri Ram and Ratan Lal to the effect that the decree for specific performance would stand fully satisfied on payment of Rs.7000/- by Shri Ram to Ratan Lal. That application of Ratan Lal was registered as execution case 35 of 1964 in the court of 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Meerut. A compromise took place on 26-3-1964 between Shri Ram and Ratan Lal to the effect that the decree for specific performance would stand fully satisfied on payment of Rs.7000/- by Shri Ram to Ratan Lal. That composition was recorded by executing court and thus the execution application 35 of 1964 was decided in terms of the said adjustment on 27-5-1964 but it was added that the compromise would have no effect on the rights of Dhani Ram Gupta, etc. whose execution application was pending. 8. The executing court dismissed the execution case 72 of 1963 preferred by Dhani Ram and another also. Dhani Ram Gupta and Firm Dasi Ram Shri Krishna preferred appeal 341 of 1971 which was disposed of by the 1st Addl. Dist. Judge Meerut on 8-10-1974. The appeal was allowed, the order of executing court dated 9-10-1964 was set aside and Dhani Ram Gupta and another were recognized as decree-holders and execution case 72 of 1963 was restored to its original number and the executing court was ordered to execute the decree. Against this order the present appeal was preferred by Lala Shri Ram which was allowed by Honble Justice G.D. Srivastava, on 16-4-1976. The order of lower appellate court dated 8th Oct., 1974 was set aside and the order of 1st Addl. Civil Judge Meerut dismissing the execution application of Dhani Ram Gupta and another was restored. 9. Sri Dhani Ram Gupta and another carried the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 1113 of 1976. That appeal was decided on 7-12-1979 (reported in AIR 1980 SC 157 ). The order of this Court was set aside and it was found that the adjustment of the decree between the judgment-debtor and decree-holder after notice of application under O.21, R.16 Civil P.C. did not operate as a bar to the execution application preferred by transferees viz., Dhani Ram Gupta and another. However, the case was remanded to this Court only for the purpose to decide the question as to whether the deed of transfer executed in favour of transferees is a deed of assignment or not? After the disposal of this question the appeal was to be disposed of accordingly. 10. However, the case was remanded to this Court only for the purpose to decide the question as to whether the deed of transfer executed in favour of transferees is a deed of assignment or not? After the disposal of this question the appeal was to be disposed of accordingly. 10. I have heard learned counsel for parties at length and perused the record. 11. To decide aforesaid question it is expedient to quote in extenso the deed which is the basis of title of Dhani Ram Gupta and another. The sale deed reads as below:- Copy of sale deed "Original on stamp papers of Rupees 2,990. I am Shri Ratan Lal son of Shri Jai Jai, caste Rajput Kurmi, resident of Mohalla Drahampuri at present village Hafizabad Mewla, Pargana and Tehsil Meerut, Ramlila Ground. Whereas property detailed below situated at village Hafizabad Mewla, Pargana and Tehsil Meerut adjoining the Delhi Road was my ownership and bhumidhari property, which I had sold to Lala Shri Ram Gupta son of Babu Kedar Nath, caste Vaish Aggarwal, resident of Meerut City for a consideration of Rs. 10,000 on conditional sale dated 31-3-1960. In respect of the said land at the time of execution of agreement dated 5th April, 1960, it was agreed that Shri Ram would reconvey the property. But due to failure on the part of Lala Shri Ram Gupta to execute the sale deed as had been agreed upon I had to file the suit for enforcement of reconveyance, bearing No.18 of 1961 Ratan Lal plaintiff versus Shri Ram defendant filed in the Court of District Judge, Meerut which was decreed in favour of executant and the said court ordered Lala Shri Ram to execute the sale deed within one month of the decree. But Shri Ram aforesaid did not execute the sale deed but filed First Appeal 125 of 1962 Shri Ram appellant versus Ratan Lal the Honble High Court against said decree which is pending decision. But Prior to filing of suit for enforcement of reconveyance sale that executant had already entered into an agreement for sale with Shri Dhani Ram Gupta son of Lala Sohan Lal, resident of Thapar Nagar Meerut and Shri Kishan son of Lala Dasi Ram, resident of Baghpat Gate, Meerut. But Prior to filing of suit for enforcement of reconveyance sale that executant had already entered into an agreement for sale with Shri Dhani Ram Gupta son of Lala Sohan Lal, resident of Thapar Nagar Meerut and Shri Kishan son of Lala Dasi Ram, resident of Baghpat Gate, Meerut. But due to failure on the part of Shri Ram to execute the sale deed the period was got extended through subsequent agreement registered on 23-1-1961 and some additional advance was also taken to meet expenses to be incurred in execution of the agreement. But now since the vendees are desirous and agreeable to purchase the property detailed below along with all the rights pertaining therein which is free from all defects of liens and encumbrances. Hence I have sold the Property along with all the rights existing in my favour and likely to accrue in future including those of appeal, in sound state of mind and senses and out of my own free will and consent to Shri Dhani Ram Gupta son of Lala Sohan Lal Vaish Agarwal, resident of Thapar Nagar, Meerut to the extent of one-half for a consideration of Rs. 22,687.50 and the other half to the firm M/s. Dasi Ram Shri Kishan, Baghpat Road, Meerut City and the entire sale consideration has been agreed upon to be paid to me by the vendees per details given below. I have now placed the purchasers in full and complete ownership and possession of the property together with all the rights, I had therein. Henceforth all those rights which the executant had with regard to reconveyance shall now vest in the purchasers and continue to be so and also with regard to appeal 125 of 1962 such rights shall also vest in the purchasers. And I shall prosecute the appeal aforesaid along with the purchasers according to the instruction of the purchaser. But without written permission and consent of the purchasers I shall not have any right to enter into separate agreement or compromise or withdraw from the appeal. All the expenses to be incurred in this appeal shall be borne by the purchasers from the date of execution of sale. But without written permission and consent of the purchasers I shall not have any right to enter into separate agreement or compromise or withdraw from the appeal. All the expenses to be incurred in this appeal shall be borne by the purchasers from the date of execution of sale. In the above agreement with regard to the amount of security which the executant is to receive on decision of appeal it has been clearly agreed and covenanted that in case the appeal succeeds the purchasers shall have to pay to the executant the advance money of Rs. 9,500 within 15 days and in case of failure of appeal the executant shall not be entitled to demand the said advance money and the purchasers shall be fully entitled to receive and realise the deposited advance money from the executant along with all court expenses and the executant shall be entitled to receive back the expenses of decree of the court of District Judge and that of Honble High Court. The purchasers shall have no concern whatsoever with the expenses of decree. But the purchasers shall have all rights to get the sale deed executed in their favour in respect of the property detailed below on success of the appeal and also all the expenses of the proceedings initiated by them and through the court of District Judge and the executant shall have no right to raise any objections thereon. Moreover they shall be fully entitled to get the mutation done in their favour in the revenue court through court amin on success. Money has been received in one hand and the property given by the other hand. This sale is perfectly valid and enforceable. Now in the present or in future owing to somebody claiming any right or due to some legal defect in the ownership or due to failure of appeal in the High Court the purchasers do not get the property, then in all such conditions the executant shall be liable to refund the advance money which he has realised from the purchasers to refund to them, and also the heirs and successors of the executant shall also be bound in their personal capacity as well as from the property held by them and conveyed. They shall have no objection whatsoever. Moreover the amount of Rs. They shall have no objection whatsoever. Moreover the amount of Rs. 15,000/- which was agreed for reconveyance with Shri Ram Gupta in terms of agreement dated 5-4-1960 in respect of the property detailed below the same has been left with the purchasers by way of security which the purchasers after paying the same shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed in their favour from Shri Ram Gupta according to order of court in their personal capacity or by depositing the money in the court to get the sale deed executed through court. The parties and their respective heirs and successors shall be bound by all these conditions. Hence executed this sale deed so that it may remain on record and may be useful at the time of need. Details of property referred to above sought to be reconveyed. Khasra No. 335 (10 biswas) 336 (12 biswas) 337 (3 bighas 3 biswas) 338 (3 bighas 5 biswas), Details of particulars of consideration money to be received:- 1. I have already received Rs. 2,000/in cash in advance through agreement dated 28-12-1960, 2. I have received Rs. 5000/- as additional advance through subsequent agreement dated 23-1-1961 duly registered. 3. I have received Rs. 3000/- on account of pronote dated 7-4-1961 favouring purchasers which amount has been adjusted to the account of executant. 4. Rs. 500/- on account of pronote dated 12-7-1962 favouring purchasers which amount has been adjusted to the account of executant 5. Rs.15,000/- left with the purchasers with intent to pay to Shri Ram Gupta on account of price of land according to the agreement, 6. Rs. 9,500/- which shall remain with the purchasers in case the appeal succeeds and which amount the executant shall realise from the purchasers through receipt. 7. Rs. 10,375/- received before the Registrar. Total Rs. 45,375/-, Date of execution 25-4-1963, Drafted by Shri K.K. Nelum and typed by Rashid Ahmad. Sd. Illegible, K.C. Nelum, Document Adviser, Meerut, Endorsement on margin Sd/- (in Hindi) Ratan Lal witness sd. in English Dal Bahadur Singh son of Thakur Man Singh, Jattiwara, Meerut City. Witness Sd...........in Urdu, Radhey Shiam Sd. Ratan Lal in (Hindi) Sd. Ratan Lal (In Hindi) Sd. Ratan Lal (In Hindi) Sd. Ratan Lal (in Hindi) Sd/- Ratan Lal (In Hindi) Sd/- Ratan Lal (In Hindi) Sd/- Ratan Lal In Hindi) Sd/- Ratan Lal (In Hindi). in English Dal Bahadur Singh son of Thakur Man Singh, Jattiwara, Meerut City. Witness Sd...........in Urdu, Radhey Shiam Sd. Ratan Lal in (Hindi) Sd. Ratan Lal (In Hindi) Sd. Ratan Lal (In Hindi) Sd. Ratan Lal (in Hindi) Sd/- Ratan Lal (In Hindi) Sd/- Ratan Lal (In Hindi) Sd/- Ratan Lal In Hindi) Sd/- Ratan Lal (In Hindi). Endorsement on back Shri Dhani Ram Gupta son of Sohan Lal, Stamp of Rupees.500/- bearing No. 26 sold Sd.II legible Treasurer 8-4-1963 No.27 Stamp of Rs. 500/- sold to Shri Dhani Ram Gupta son of Sohan Lal Sd/-Illegible Treasurer 8-4-1963, No. 28 Stamp of Rs.500/- sold to Shri Dhani Ram Gupta son of Sohan Lal, resident of Meerut Sd/- Illegible Treasurer. Meerut, 8-4-63, No. 29 Stamp of Rs. 500/- sold to Shri Dhani Ram Gupta son of Sohan Lal, Meerut, Sd/- Illegible Treasurer, 8-4-63, No. 30/3 Stamp of Rs. 200/- sold to Shri Dhani Ram Gupta, son of Sohan Lal, resident of Meerut, Sd/- Illegible Treasurer, 8-4-1963, No. 31Stamp of Rupees 200/-sold to Shri Dhani Ram Gupta son of Sohan Lal, Meerut, Sd/Illegible Treasurer, 8-4-1963. No. 32 Stamp of Rs. 75/- sold to Shri Dhani Ram Gupta son of Sohan Lal, Meerut, Sd/- Illegible Treasurer, 8-4-1963, No. 33 Stamp of Rs. 15/- sold to Shri Dhani Ram Gupta son of Sohan Lal, Meerut, Sd/- Illegible Treasurer, 8-4-1963. Seal". 12. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued before me that the aforesaid document did not amount to an assignment of the decree. On the date of execution of this document first appeal 125 of 1962 had not been disposed of by the High Court and so it was not open to Ratan Lal to transfer his rights to the alleged assignees in a decree which was not in existence on the date of transfer. 13. On the date of execution of this document first appeal 125 of 1962 had not been disposed of by the High Court and so it was not open to Ratan Lal to transfer his rights to the alleged assignees in a decree which was not in existence on the date of transfer. 13. It was further pointed out that the rights to recover costs of appeal were not transferred to the assignee under this agreement and so it was not total transfer of his decretal rights; it was further pointed out that there was a tube-well and two rooms and another well and oil engine and pumping set in plot 337 which was not specified in the deed of transfer and so this deed could not have transferred the said items and under such circumstances the remedy of the transferees was by way of a separate suit and not to apply under O.21, R.16, Civil P.C., to execute the decree as assignees, 14. Only such assignee was competent to execute the decree who could have stepped in the shoes of the decree-holder in a manner to virtually efface him; partial transfer of the decretal rights could not amount to an assignment as contemplated by O.21, R.16, Civil P.C. 15. In this connection reliance was placed upon Jugal Kishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd. ( AIR 1955 SC 376 ) where it was observed (at p. 382):- "To attract the application of the principle of equitable assignment of decree there must be an agreement to transfer the decree to be passed in future. As soon as the decree is passed equity fastens upon it and, by treating as done what ought to be done, that is by assuming that the transferor has executed a deed transferring the decree to the transferee as in all conscience he should do, equity regards the transferee as the beneficial owner of the after-acquired decree. The equitable principle only implements or effectuates the agreement of the parties. This equity does not, however, take upon itself the task of making any new agreement for the parties either by filling up the lacuna or gap in their agreement or otherwise. The equitable principle only implements or effectuates the agreement of the parties. This equity does not, however, take upon itself the task of making any new agreement for the parties either by filling up the lacuna or gap in their agreement or otherwise. If, therefore, there is no agreement between the parties to transfer the future decree the equitable principle cannot come into play at all..." Learned Advocate also tried to distinguish equitable assignment and legal assignment of the decree, His contention was that such an agreement as entered into by parties was not operable on a portion of the decree, reference to which has been omitted in the said deed of transfer. 16. It appears that in above case two persons namely Mahomedali Habib and Sakerkhanoo Mahomedali Habib who were businessmen as pacca adatias in bullion and cotton at Bombay filed a suit in 1948 in Bombay City Civil Court against the appellant Jugal Kishore Saraf, etc for recovery of Rupees 7,113.7 Annas along with interest at 6 per cent per annum on the basis of certain transactions in gold and silver. 17. Pending that suit on 7-2-1949 an agreement took place whereby the two partners aforesaid agreed to transfer to respondent M/s. Raw Cotton Company Limited all the book and other debts due to them in connection with their business in Bombay and full benefits of all the securities for the debts and all other property to which they were entitled in connection with the said business. 18. The respondent-company took no steps under O.22, R.10, Civil P.C. to get themselves substituted as plaintiffs in place of Mahomedali Habib and sons but allowed the suit to be continued in the name of the original plaintiff viz. Mahomedali Habib and Sakerkhanoo. Both of them migrated to Pakistan and their properties vested in the custodian. A decree for Rs.8,428.7 Annas along with the interest was fixed in their favour. The custodian informed the respondent-Company viz. M/s. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd. about the result of the suit on 2-8-1950 on which date additional custodian confirmed the transaction of transfer in their favour. When respondent-Company on 25-4-1951 presented before the Bombay City Civil Court a tabular statement for execution of the decree under O.21, R.11, Civil P.C., with a prayer that they may be declared as assignees of the decree the objection was preferred by Jugal Kishore etc. When respondent-Company on 25-4-1951 presented before the Bombay City Civil Court a tabular statement for execution of the decree under O.21, R.11, Civil P.C., with a prayer that they may be declared as assignees of the decree the objection was preferred by Jugal Kishore etc. after service of notice under O.21, R.16, Civil P.C. Thus on these facts aforesaid principle of law was laid down. Thus the contention of learned counsel for appellant in this appeal was that as on the date of transfer the decree of High Court was not in existence, so it was not open to Ratan Lal to have transferred his interest in a decree which did not exist. Dhani Ram Gupta and others did not get themselves substituted as assignees in place of Ratan Lal pending that appeal under O.22, R.10, Civil P.C. 19. He also relied upon Hamid Ali Khan v. Smt. Shanti Devi (1950 All WR 272) where it was laid that the right to execute the decree under O.21, R.16, Civil P.C., was not available to an assignee. 20. Reliance was next placed upon Vithal Laxman Naik Malgavkar v. Mahadev Raghunath Kondkar reported in AIR 1924 Bom 426 where it was pointed out that a mere purchaser of property covered by the decree was not a representative of decree-holder unless the decree had been assigned to him. It appears from a perusal of facts of that case that one Lingo got a decree in Regular Suit 182 of 1916 whereby it was ordered that defendant 1 and the plaintiff should take possession of various properties from the other defendants. 21. After the decree had been passed Lingo sold his interest in some of the properties of which possession was directed to be given to him to the appellants. Lingo thereafter made an application for execution of his decree. His purchasers were not parties to that application. An order was made in execution under O.21, R.35 (1), Civil P.C. In appeal preferred against that order it was held that as the transferee was not purchaser of decree so he could not be deemed as an assignee to execute the decree under O.21, R.16, Civil P.C. 22. His purchasers were not parties to that application. An order was made in execution under O.21, R.35 (1), Civil P.C. In appeal preferred against that order it was held that as the transferee was not purchaser of decree so he could not be deemed as an assignee to execute the decree under O.21, R.16, Civil P.C. 22. Learned Advocate for appellant also relied upon Hansraj Pal v. Mukhraji Kunwar reported in (1907) ILR 30 All 28 where it was observed:- "If a decree-holder holding a decree for possession of immovable property sells a portion of such property, the sale does not, without express provision to that effect give the purchaser any right to execute the decree himself: Ram Sahai v. Gaya ((1884) ILR 7 All 107) referred to". 23. In that case Hansraj Pal obtained a decree for possession of several plots. He sold a portion of the property but did not execute any assignment of the decree. Vendee applied for execution under S.232, Civil P.C. The application failed. Thus it is obvious that in that case there was no reference to the decree and the decree-holder did not transfer the entire decree to the transferee but simply sold a portion of immovable property to transferee. 24. On behalf of appellant reliance was also placed upon Shib Charan Das v. Ram Chander, reported in AIR 1922 All 98 which posited: "Order 21. Rule 16 lays down definitely that when a person other than the decree-holder wishes to execute a decree, that person must prove an assignment in writing or by operation of the law, and must adopt the procedure laid down in O.21 R.6. Section 146 does not apply as O.21, R.16 is the saving provision." 25. In that case Mst. Kripa Devi, a decree-holder transferred the property to one Shib Charan Das while the appeals were pending in the High Court against the decrees of the courts below. The subject matter of litigation was certain houses situated in Meerut City. The decree for possession awarded to her was an additional decree. It was on her paying the compensation to the judgment-debtor in respect of the material of the houses that she could enter possession of the sites. Under these circumstances it was held that the assignees were not assignees of the decree as right to execute the decree was not conferred on the purchaser. 26. It was on her paying the compensation to the judgment-debtor in respect of the material of the houses that she could enter possession of the sites. Under these circumstances it was held that the assignees were not assignees of the decree as right to execute the decree was not conferred on the purchaser. 26. None of the aforesaid authorities is in point. As regards the deed of transfer, having regard to the tenor and the terms of the document and the circumstances of the case it is crystal clear that the executant intended to transfer his interest in the property which he had obtained and which he was to obtain in first appeal 125 of 1962. The decree of the trial court was already in existence. The main satisfaction of the decree could have been through execution of the sale deed about the disputed bhumidhari. The executant also narrated the facts about durable litigation in which parties are embroiled culminating in first appeal 125 of 1962. It was further stipulated "...... I have sold the property along with all the rights existing in my favour and likely to accrue in future including those of appeal......" 27. He further proceeded to stipulate "...... I have now placed the purchasers in full and complete ownership and possession of the property together with all the rights I had therein. Henceforth all those rights which the executant had with regard to reconveyance shall now vest in the purchasers and continue to be so and also with regard to appeal 125 of 1962 such rights shall also vest in the purchasers. And I shall prosecute the appeal aforesaid along with the purchasers according to the instructions of the purchaser. But without written permissions and consent of the purchasers I shall not have any right to enter into separate agreement or compromise or withdraw from the appeal..... But the purchasers shall have all rights to get the sale deed executed in their favour in respect of the property detailed below on success of the appeal and also all the expenses of the proceedings initiated by them and through the court of District Judge and the executant shall have no right to raise any objections thereon. Moreover they shall be fully entitled to get the mutation done in their favour in the revenue court through court Amin on success...... This sale is perfectly valid and enforceable. Moreover they shall be fully entitled to get the mutation done in their favour in the revenue court through court Amin on success...... This sale is perfectly valid and enforceable. Moreover the amount of Rs. 15,000 which was agreed for reconveyance with Shri Ram Gupta in terms of agreement dated 5-4-1960 in respect of the property detailed below the same has been left with the purchasers by way of security which the purchasers after paying the same shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed in their favour from Shri Ram Gupta according to order of court in their personal capacity or by depositing the money in the court to get the sale deed executed through court. The parties and their respective heirs and successors shall be bound by all these conditions......" 28. As I peruse the aforesaid material paras of the said document it is obvious that the bhumidhari plots along with the directions specified in the decree of suit 18 of 1961 were conveyed to the transferees. This decree was already in existence on the date of transfer and was operative not only on bhumidhari plots but the well and constructions, etc. existing on plot 337 as all the rights of decree-holder were transferred to the transferees. Even the right of execution of the decree was transferred in favour of Dhani Ram Gupta and another. If one were to exclude the property covered by this deed from subject matter of decree then the decree-holder will be left with nothing except with the expenses of the decree. Obviously such expenses of a decree do not constitute main subject matter of litigation. Such expenses or costs are simply statutory allowance to a party to an action for his expenses incurred in the action. These are in the nature of incidental damages awarded it a successful party to indemnify him against the expenses of asserting his rights in court when the necessity for so doing was caused by the others in breach of legal duty. Such costs are the sums prescribed by law as charges for the services enumerated in the fee bill etc. They have reference only to the parties and the amounts paid by them and only those expenditures which are by statute taxable and to be included in the judgment fall within the term "costs". vide American jurisprudence 2nd Edition Volume XX page 5. They have reference only to the parties and the amounts paid by them and only those expenditures which are by statute taxable and to be included in the judgment fall within the term "costs". vide American jurisprudence 2nd Edition Volume XX page 5. A similar definition of the word cost has been laid in Corpus Juris Secundum at page 419. Such award of costs is discretionary. So the mere fact that the decree-holder reserved his right to a fraction of such costs which were unascertained on 25-7-1963 did not tantamount to partial transfer of decree to transferees. On the other hand the intention of the parties was to transfer the decree in its entirety to the transferees. It is further significant to note that Shri Ram was not a party to this agreement and Ratan Lal has not come forward to assail this transfer deed executed by him. He is held fast by it. He also transferred his rights in the decree which was to be passed in first appeal 125 of 1962 aforesaid; such principle of equitable assignment of decree has been judicially recognized in AIR 1955 SC 376 (supra). 29. Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P.C. as amended uptodate reads as below :- "16. Application for execution by transferee of decree.- Where a decree or if a decree has been passed jointly in favour of two or more persons, the interest of any decree-holder in the decree is transferred by assignment in writing or by operation of law, the transferee may apply for execution of the decree to the Court which passed it; and the decree may be executed in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the application were made by such decree-holder; Provided that, where the decree, or such interest as aforesaid, has been transferred by assignment, notice of such application shall be given to the transferor and the judgment-debtor, and the decree shall not be executed until the court has heard their objections (if any) to its execution; 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. (Explanation.- Nothing in this rule shall affect the provisions of Section 146, and a transferee of rights in the property, which is the subject matter of the suit, may apply for execution of the decree without a separate assignment of the decree as required by this rule.") It is obvious that after the amendment of the said Rule through explanation appended to it, by Section 72 of the amendment of Civil P.C., 1976 the object of legislature was to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to confer the right of execution of decree on a transferee of property which was the subject matter of the suit. This such transferees of rights in decretal property shall not be under necessity to procure a separate assignment of the decree and shall be well within their rights to execute the decree straightway under O.21, R.16, Civil P.C. In this view of the matter also I find that the aforesaid document amounts to transfer of decree under the deed of assignment to transferees. 30. In the result second appeal 2162 of 1974 is dismissed with costs. Dhani Ram Gupta and Firm Dasi Ram Shri Krishna are recognised as decree-holders. Execution case 72 of 1963 shall be restored and registered to its original number. Executing court shall forthwith execute the decree according to its directions and conditions. Thus the impugned order dated 8-10-1974 recorded by Sri D.K. Agarwal in Civil Appeal 341 of 1971 is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.