JUDGMENT 1. - In execution petition moved by the present non-petitioner, the petitioner preferred objections which were disallowed by the Executing Court, viz. the Civil Judge, Kota, by order dated 19-3-1981. The petitioner's appeal against the rejection of her objections was also dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2 Kota, on 29-11-1986. It is against this order that she has come in this revision petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the property in dispute belonged to Shri Vasu Pujjiyaji, Kota (here in after referred to as the temple), and the petitioner's mother Smt. Ida was a tenant in two shops of this temple at a monthly rent of Rs. 8/-p.m. A suit for rent and eviction was filed on behalf of the temple, which was decreed on 22-4-1963. Smt. Ida preferred an appeal before the District Judge Kota, and that was also dismissed on 27-5-1965. Thereafter no proceedings took place in court till the year 1975, when the present respondent moved an application for the execution of decree for rent and possession of the property, for which decree was passed. According to the non-petitioner he applied for the execution of the decree because he had purchased the property from the temple, on 12-5-1973, by virtue of a registered sale-deed and as such had became owner of the same and was entitled to execute the decree passed in favour of the vendor. 3. Two objections were raised by the present-petitioner. The first one was that after the dismissal of the appeal filed by Smt. Ida, the matter was settled outside the Court and in accordance with this settlement, one of the apartment was handed-over to the temple while the other remained in possession of the petitioner and the rent of this apartment was fixed at Rs. 10/-p.m. Earlier she was paying Rs. 8/- p.m. for two apartments. From 1965, onwards, first Smt. Ida and thereafter the petitioner continued to pay rent of Rs. 10/-p.m. and at times even obtained receipts some of which have been produced and the temple took no steps to get the premises vacated. According to the first objection the matter between the parties was compromised and as such the question of executing the decree did not arise. 10/-p.m. and at times even obtained receipts some of which have been produced and the temple took no steps to get the premises vacated. According to the first objection the matter between the parties was compromised and as such the question of executing the decree did not arise. The second objection of the petitioner is that the sale-deed in favour of the non-petitioner does not specifically make a provision that the rights under the decree, which was obtained by the temple have also been transferred and in absence of a specific assignment of the decree, the transferee of the property is not entitled to execute the decree. 4. The reply of the non-petitioners to these objections was that the compromise alleged by the petitioner was not verified before any Court and as such could not be acted upon and as regards the second objection, it was contended that by virtue of Section 146, Civil Procedure Code and Order 21, Rule 16, CPC, in which an explanation has been added, the transferee of a decree could apply for the execution of a decree without a separate assignment. 5. The learned trial court held that after the death of Ida, her daughter Smt. Phoola became the judgment-debtor and the decree could be executed against her. As regards the coming into force of a new tenancy, it was held that this fact was not supported by any receipts or any other evidence. As for the second objection, it was held that the explanation to Order 21, Rule 16, gave a right to the transferee of a decree holder to execute the decree without a specific assignment of the right to execute the decree. The same finding was given by the lower appellate court. 6. As far as the first objection of the petitioner about the coming into force of a new tenancy is concerned, it may be mentioned that it will not be proper for this Court to go into this question of fact in a revision petition. There is no doubt that the courts below have not looked into the matter that the original suit was for evicting the tenant from two shops or apartments but subsequently what is in her possession is only one apartment but this being a question of fact cannot be re-opened at this stage. There is no doubt that the courts below have not looked into the matter that the original suit was for evicting the tenant from two shops or apartments but subsequently what is in her possession is only one apartment but this being a question of fact cannot be re-opened at this stage. No doubt certain receipts have been produced by the petitioner to show that she has been depositing rent at rate of Rs. 10/- p.m. and the non-petitioner has not said anything about the correctness or otherwise of these receipts but when the courts below have discussed the material produced before it and arrived at a conclusion then the matter about new tenancy stands closed and it will not be proper for me to reopen this question. 7. The main point which remains to be decided in this revision is whether the non-petitioner is entitled to execute the decree passed in favour of the temple without a specific assignment of the decree in his favour. The relevant provisions in this connection are Section 146 and Order 21, Rule 16, CPC, and the same may be reproduced here: 146. Proceedings by or against representatives: Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any law for the time being in force, where any proceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person, then the proceeding may be taken or the application may be made by or against any person claiming under him. Proceedings by or against representatives: Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any law for the time being in force, where any proceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person, then the proceeding may be taken or the application may be made by or against any person claiming under him. ORDER 21, Rule 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 effect 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. 8. The transfer of the property in favour of the non-petitioner was made in the year 1975, that is prior to the amendment made under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code and at that time the explanation of this provision was not in existence. The effect of this will have to be seen. It may also be mentioned that the non-petitioner has applied for the execution of the decree in the name of the temple but through the transferee and whether it can be said to be open to him to do so. The original decree holder, viz.. the temple did not take any steps for execution of the decree from 1965 to 1973 when the property was sold. The original decree holder, viz.. the temple did not take any steps for execution of the decree from 1965 to 1973 when the property was sold. It was only after the sale of the property that the execution application was presented for the first time. Though the decree was in the name of the temple but can it be said that the purchaser of the property had the right to execute the dec ce as a representative of the original decree-holder and whether he could have done so without a specific assignment of the decree itself. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner has placed reliance on Satyanarayan v. Sindhu Bai Sharma AIR 1965 Andhra Pradesh 81 wherein Section 146 Civil Procedure Code had been considered and it has been laid down as under: The opening words of Section 146 must receive a beneficial construction and the section itself should be interpreted beneficially and it ought to be read as supplementing the rules of the Code. The scope of the section should not be whittled down by placing a too narrow and limited construction on it. The section is wide enough to entitle a person to file an execution petition or continue a proceeding started by another person under whom he claims. The section has, however, to be applied where there is no other provision in that regard either in the Code of Civil Procedure or any other law. Since, therefore, a transferee of merely the subject matter of a decree cannot execute the decree under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 16 as not being an assignee in writing of the decree, he can execute the decree under the section as he is a person who claims under the decree holder. A person claiming under a party to a litigation can be one who has either succeeded to the position of the latter in the litigation or has acquired from him, subsequent to the commencement of the litigation any interest in the subject-matter. In either case such a person must be said to be claiming under the concerned party within the meaning of the section. 9. In either case such a person must be said to be claiming under the concerned party within the meaning of the section. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has first of all contended that the amendments made in the Civil Procedure Code, by the Amending Act of 1976, cannot be said to be retrospective and in this connection he has specifically referred to Section 97(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. Amendment Act, 1976, which provides that the Amending Rules 31, 32, 48A etc. of Order 21 shall not apply or affect any decree subsisting before the commencement of the amendment or to any suit instituted before the commencement of the amendment or to any proceedings to set-aside the sale of any immovable property. This provision does not say whether the explanation added to Order 21, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code can be deemed to be retrospective in nature or not. The position has to be considered in view of the other decisions which have been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 10. In Jugalkishore Saraf v. M/s Raw Cotton Co. Ltd. AIR 1955 Supreme Court 376 it has been observed that there is no doubt on the authorities that a mere transfer of property as such does not by itself spell out a transfer of a decree which has been passed or may be passed in respect of that property and it would require an assignment of such decree in order to effectuate the transfer. There Lordships further considered that where the property which is transferred is an actionable claim, there is therefore necessarily involved also a transfer of the transferor's right in a decree which may be passed in his favour by the Court of law, that decree is also automatically transferred in favour of the transferee by virtue of the assignment in writing already executed by the transferor. In this particular case there was a transfer of book debt and other debts in connection with their business and full benefit of all securities for the debts and all other property to which they were entitled in connection with the said business. It was thus an admitted position in that case that the debt for which the transferors had instituted a suit had been assigned to the transferees as the transfer was of debts. 11. It was thus an admitted position in that case that the debt for which the transferors had instituted a suit had been assigned to the transferees as the transfer was of debts. 11. In Vithinatha Padayachi v. Ammalu Ammal and another AIR 1940 Madras 610 , it has been held that under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code a transfer of a mortgage can be effected by a registered instrument and if the transfer is not through a registered instrument then it is not "in accordance with law". 12. Section 146 Civil Procedure Code provides for moving and application and taking proceedings by any person claiming under a person who is entitled to move an application or take proceedings. In this context the transferee of a property can be said to have all the rights which belong to the transferor of the property. Under Order 21, Rule 16, the interest of any decree-holder in the decree can be transferred by assignment in writing or by operation of law. The proviso to this rule provides that the notice of the assignment has to be given to the transferor as well as the judgment-debtor and the Court shall not proceed until it has heard the objections to the execution. The explanation to this rule provides that 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. 13. Thus the position which arises is whether in the present case, the non-petitioner is entitled to proceed under Section 146, Civil Procedure Code and if so then he has a right to apply for the execution of the decree without a separate assignment of the decree in writing as is required by the rule. This provision viz. Section 146, Civil Procedure Code which has been introduced with the object of facilitating the exercise of rights by persons in whom they can be said to be vested by devolution or an assignment, and being a beneficial section, has to be construed liberally so as to advance justice. The expression 'any person claiming under him' is wide enough to cover cases of devolution, assignment of property, etc. The expression 'any person claiming under him' is wide enough to cover cases of devolution, assignment of property, etc. When the assignee of debts has been held to have succeeded to the interest of decree-holder in a decree which is passed subsequent to the assignment of the debts; then the transferee of property can be said to be a person claiming under the transferor all the rights which the transferor had in respect of the transferred property. The explanation to Order 21, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code cannot be said to be retrospective in operation as the applicability of the same has not been specifically mentioned in Section 92(2) of the Amending Act of 1976 of the Civil Procedure Code but the benefit of the explanation can be obtained even by those transferees where the decree has been passed prior to the amendment and there is no separate assignment for the execution of the decree by virtue of Section 146, CPC. In view of my opinion the non petitioner has a right to proceed with the execution of the decree and the objection of the petitioner does not have any force. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Revision Dismissed. *******