1. The Subordinate Judge ,has in effect found that the execution petitioner is a benamidar for Souri Ayyangar who with the money of 1st defendant purchased the decree.
2. This finding is sufficient to bring the case within the scope of the 2nd proviso to Rule 16, Order 21, C.P.C.
3. The decree was one for the payment of money against first defendant and three others.
4. The fact that 1st defendant was directed by the decree to pay the amount out of his family properties does not make the decree any the less a decree for payment of money against him.
5. The observation of Chandavarkar, J. in Panachand v. Sundrabai I.L.R.(1907) 31 Bom. 308 . that 'A decree for money against several persons' means a personal decree for the payment of money by two or more defendants jointly in our opinion puts an unduly nairow interpretation on this provision. The spirit of the rule is that one judgment debtor should not by acquiring the interest of a decree-holder be allowed to put himself into a position in which he can force the other judgment debtors to pay the whole of the decree amount, when his proper remedy is a suit for contribution and for this purpose it does not seem to signify whether the assignee decree-holder is one against whom a personal money decree has been passed or one who has been directed to pay the decree amount out of the proceeds of the property in his hands.
6. It is next argued that the Subordinate Judge was by reason of Order 21, Rule 2 not entitled to find that the decree was satisfied by Souri Ayyangar's purchase. This argument is met in the decisions in Ramayya v. Krishnamurthi I.L.R. (1916) Mad. 296 , and Mohamad Rowther v. Pichai Rowther (1916) 4 L.W. 534, where it was pointed out that the transferee must first prove his right before he can be allowed to execute the decree and it is then only that any question of adjustment will arise.
7. The Lower Courts had jurisdiction to decide as they have done and the Civil Revision-Petition is dismissed.