Transfer of decree by written assignment is required to execute under Order XXI Rule 16; property transfer alone is insufficient.

A transferee can execute a decree under Order XXI Rule 16 CPC only where there has been an assignment of the decree in writing or a transfer by operation of law. A mere transfer of the underlying property, even with arrears of rent, does not amount to transfer of the decree itself. The Calcutta HC read the earlier authorities as depending on the wording of the instruments before them, not on any general rule that equity can replace the statutory requirement. As there was no written assignment, no statutory devolution, and the decree was not in existence when the alleged assignment was made, the appellants lacked locus standi to execute the rent decree.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants, as assignees of the decree-holders' properties but without an assignment of the decree in writing and before the decree had come into existence, could be treated as transferees entitled to execute the rent decree under Order XXI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The right to apply for execution under Order XXI Rule 16 depends on a transfer of the decree by assignment in writing or by operation of law. A mere transfer of the underlying properties, even with arrears of rent, is not the same as a transfer of the decree itself. The earlier decisions relied on by the appellants were read as turning on the construction of the written instruments in those cases, not on any broad doctrine that equity can supply the place of a statutory transfer by operation of law. On the facts here, there was no written assignment of the decree, no statutory devolution, and the decree had not even been in existence when the alleged assignment was made.

Conclusion: The appellants were not transferees entitled to execute the decree, and the objection to their locus standi succeeded.

---