Decree transferee by operation of law failed for lack of vesting evidence, so execution could not be maintained.

Order XXI Rule 16 CPC permits execution by a decree transferee only where the decree is assigned in writing or transferred by operation of law. No written assignment was shown, and there was no evidence of death, succession, devolution, or statutory vesting to establish a transfer by operation of law. Mere production of a copy of the decree in earlier proceedings did not amount to a transfer of the decree. The respondent was therefore neither a legal representative nor a person in whom the decree-holder's interest had vested by law, and had no locus standi to execute the decree; the executing court had no jurisdiction to issue execution in his favour.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent had locus standi to apply for execution of a decree on the footing that he was a transferee by operation of law within Order XXI, Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Analysis: Order XXI, Rule 16 applies where a decree is transferred by assignment in writing or by operation of law. The absence of any assignment in writing was undisputed. The claimed transfer by operation of law was not supported by evidence showing death, devolution, succession, or any statutory vesting of the decree-holder's interest. Mere production of a copy of the decree in earlier proceedings did not amount to a transfer of the decree. A transferee by operation of law must be a legal representative or a person in whom the decree-holder's interest has vested by law, and the respondent did not answer that description. The proper course, if any right existed under the respondent's own decree, was to proceed under the appropriate execution procedure and not to execute Rangubai's decree as if he were its proprietor.

Conclusion: The respondent was not a transferee by operation of law and had no locus standi to execute the decree; the executing court lacked jurisdiction to issue execution in his favour.

---