Judgment :- 1. This revision is filed against the order of the lower Court in E.A. No. 2936 of 1982 allowing the petition filed under S. 47, C.P.C. 2. One Gurusamy and his mother Kannammal filed the suit in O.S. No. 4025 of 1968 on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, against Ponniah, father of their respondent herein and the Executive Officer, Prasanna Vinayagar Koil Devasthanam, for declaration of their title and for recovery of possession of the house bearing old Door No. 75 and New Door No. 40 in R.S. No. 1208/1. assuring 1, 200 sq.ft. Ponniah, first defendant in the said suit remaind exparte and the suit was contested only by the second defendant Executive Officer, Prasanna Vinayagar Koil Devasthanam, On 22-6-1970, the trial court decreed the suit in O.S. No. 4025/68 and granted a decree for declaration and recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiffs Gurusamy and Kannammal. The said decree in O.S. No. 4025 of 1968 has become final. On 22-10-1979, the petitioner herein has purchased the property from Gurusamy, first plaintiff in the said suit and the legal representatives of Kannammal under a registered sale deed, marked as Ex. B. 1 in this case. After purchase under Ex. B. 1, the petitioner herein filed Ex. P. No. 1722 of 1980 against the respondent herein, who is the daughter of the said Ponnaiah for executing the decree and for taking possession of the suit property in O.S. No. 4025 of 1968 on the ground that under Ex. B. 1, he purchased the suit property. In the said execution petition, the respondent herein filed Ex. A. No. 2996 of 1982 under S. 47, C.P.C., for dismissal of the execution petition on the ground that the petitioner herein has not obtained, a valid assignment of the decree in O.S. No. 4025 of 1968 from the Plaintiffs in the suit, In E.A. No. 2936 of 1982, the respondent therein further contended that she is in possession of the house bearing old door No. 78-A and the new Door No. 43, which is not the subject matter of the decree in O.S. No. 4025/1968. The lower Court allowed E.A. No. 2936/1982 and dismissed E.P. No. 1722 of 1980 on the ground that the petitioner herein has not obtained the assignment of the decree in O.S. No. 4025 of 1968 from the plaintiffs in the said suit and on the further ground that there are some discrepancies in the description of the property given in the decree in O.S. No. 4025 of 1968 and the sale deed under Ex. B. 1. As against the order of the Lower Court, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 3. Mr. K.P. Unmikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of S. 146 read with Explanation to O. 21, R. 16, C.P.C. formal assignment of the decree is not necessary and that the petitioner who has purchased the petition mentioned property under Ex. B. 1 from the decree holders in O.S. No. 4025 of 1968 is entitled to execute the decree for possession, even without obtaining the assignment of the decree from the decree holders. There is merit in this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. S. 146, C.P.C. provides, that 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. Explanation to Rule 16 of Order 21 states that nothing contained in O. 21, R. 16 will affect the provisions of S. 146, C.P.C. and the transferee of the rights of 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 under O. 21, R. 16, C.P.C. In view of the above provisions, the petitioner, who has purchased the property from the decree holders in O.S. No. 4025 of 1968 under Ex. B. 1 is entitled to execute the decree for possession, without having a formal deed of assignment of the decree from the decree holder in O.S. No. 4025 of 1968. B. 1 is entitled to execute the decree for possession, without having a formal deed of assignment of the decree from the decree holder in O.S. No. 4025 of 1968. Therefore, the lower court is not right in holding that the petitioner herein cannot execute the decree in O.S. No. 4025 of 1968 without obtaining the formal assignment of the decree in his favour and the order of the lower court holding that the decree cannot be executed by the petitioner herein without a deed of assignment is liable to be set aside. 4. The lower Court has also found that the description property given in the decree in O.S. No. 4025 of 1968 and in E.P. No. 1722 of 1982 on the one hand and the description of property given in Ex. B. 1 on the other hand do not tally and on that ground also, the petitioner is not entitled to execute the decree. However, the lower court has not given the basis for coming to such a conclusion. This is a matter, which required further investigation by the lower Court and I am of the opinion that the matter has to be remanded to the lower court for fresh disposal according to law. The lower court has to localise the petition-mentioned property and then find out, whether there is really any discrepancy between the description of property given in the decree and in the execution petition on the one hand and in Ex. B. 1 on the other hand warranting dismissal of the execution petition. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the lower court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower court for fresh disposal according to law and after ascertaining, whether the property purchased under Ex. B. 1 is the subject matter of the decree in O.S. No. 4025 of 1968. It is open to both parties to let in fresh evidence, both oral and documentary, before the lower court. It is also open to the petitioner to take out a commission before the lower court for the purpose of localising the petition mentioned property. There will be no order as to costs.