JUDGMENT : It is a case wherein a decree for specific performance was granted, which was upheld by the first and second appellate court, thereby it has become final and conclusive. Later on, a sale deed was executed in execution of the decree and the same was engrossed on stamp paper. The petitioner is the 6th respondent in E.P.No.137/2010. Under the impugned order, the execution court directed delivery of the property based on the sale deed executed. It is under challenge on the ground that no notice as mandated under Rule 16 of Order XXI C.P.C. was issued and that the decree was executed not in compliance with the requirement under that provision. Further, it is submitted that an assignee of the decree is bound to follow the mandate under that provision by issuing notice in execution of the decree both to the transferor and the judgment-debtor. But in the instant case, what is involved is a testamentary succession and hence, the question whether a testamentary succession though involves transfer of interest would come under the purview of Order XXI Rule 16 C.P.C. requires consideration. 2. In order to resolve the issue, it is necessary to have an understanding with respect to the scope and ambit of Rule 16 of Order XXI C.P.C., which is extracted below for reference: “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.” (emphasis supplied) 3. A plain reading of the said provision would make it clear that Rule 16 would operate only when there is a transfer of interest in a decree either in whole or in part by the decree holder either by way of assignment in writing or by operation of law. The wording “by operation of law” stands for transfer effected under the provisions of any law, which may include a court sale, assignment made by the official receiver on behalf of an insolvent debtor and intestate succession. A Will or codicil being a testamentary document though originates from the act of testator would largely come under the sphere of succession, since it would operate only from the moment of death of testator/testatrix and all alienation, conveyance, encumbrance made over the property by the testator/testatrix would stand valid and binding on the subject of the testament and it would operate only with respect to any of the property included in the testament left out at the time of death of testator. Order XXI Rule 16 C.P.C. encompasses two types of transfers -(i) a transfer by assignment in writing and (ii) by operation of law. A document of testamentary succession viz., a Will or codicil, would largely fall under the sphere of transfer “by operation of law”, though it involves a transfer by writing. A “transfer by assignment in writing” may have an immediate effect of an “assignment” and would operate with immediate effect which is lacking in the case of a testamentary succession. The scope of the provision is elaborately considered by the Apex Court in Dhani Ram Gupta v. Lala Sri Ram [ (1980) 2 SCC 162 ]. As discussed earlier, a Will or codicil will come into play only on the death of the person concerned, the testator. Till that time, the succession will not operate under the Will or codicil. Further, it will operate only with respect to the property left out and included in the testament at the time of death of testator. As discussed earlier, a Will or codicil will come into play only on the death of the person concerned, the testator. Till that time, the succession will not operate under the Will or codicil. Further, it will operate only with respect to the property left out and included in the testament at the time of death of testator. Necessarily, the document would fall largely under the sphere of “by operation of law” rather than the act of party by way of a transfer by assignment in writing. The incorporation of the words “transfer by” with the wording “assignment in writing” would show that the legislature never intended to bring up a testamentary succession under the first limb of the said provision. Further, in so far as a testamentary succession is concerned, there is no scope for giving notice to the transferor, as it would operate only on the death of testator/testatrix as the case may be. Further, the requirement under that provision is only perfunctory as against the judgment-debtor or the persons litigating under him. A judgment-debtor who is not litigating under the decree holder cannot insist for notice under that provision though a judgment-debtor is also included under the proviso to the said Rule. The reason behind it is that normally the judgment-debtor may not have any right to interfere with an assignment of decree by the decree holder, unless the judgment-debtor or the persons litigating under him claims right based on any assignment in writing or by operation of law over the decree schedule property either in whole or in part. This might be the reason why the legislature has incorporated “judgment-debtor” also along with “transferor” as the persons entitled to notice under that provision. It is relevant to consider what is laid down by the Apex Court in Dhani Ram Gupta's case (supra). The object of issuing notice to the transferor and the judgment-debtor is to determine the validity of the transfer in the presence of all concerned. In the matter of a testamentary succession, which would operate on the death of testator, the requirement of notice to transferor would pale into insignificance as there is no scope for issuing notice to a dead person, necessarily, the natural legal heirs would step into the shoes of transferor, but only as litigating under the transferor and not in the status of transferor. So the very principle under the provision is not to avoid execution of a decree, but it is only an enabling provision so as to make it possible for an assignee of decree to execute the decree when there is a document of transfer of decree or a transfer by operation of law. Necessarily, it should always be after the decree, otherwise, the option available to the party lies under Section 146 of C.P.C.. 4. In the first proviso to Rule 16, notice is mandated only when there is a “transfer by assignment”. The legislature has carefully worded in the proviso attached to Rule 16, wherein the wording used “where the decree, or such interest as aforesaid has been transferred by assignment” excluding the expression “transfer by operation of law”, would make it clear that the requirement under that proviso need not be complied with, when the transfer is by operation of law. The expression “as aforesaid” is in reference to the transfer by assignment in writing made mentioned in the main body of Rule 16, may not have any extended meaning so as to bring up a transfer by operation of law within its sphere. Necessarily, there is no requirement of issuing notice either to the decree holder or to the judgment- debtor, when the transfer is “by operation of law”. The expression “by operation of law” is conspicuously absent in the first proviso attached to the main provision – Rule 16, which mandates notice of execution. Necessarily, a document of succession in the form of a Will or codicil in its true sense will not come under the large spectrum of an “assignment in writing” of interest of decree holder over the decree. Hence, the delivery ordered by the execution court deserves no interference. The question of validity of intestate or testamentary succession is a question to be agitated and decided in a properly instituted suit between the natural legal heirs and the legatees under the Will, in which, the judgment debtor or his legal heirs, who are not litigating under the decree holder has no role to play. The O.P.(C) will stand dismissed accordingly.