1. The appellant claims to execute the decree which, he says, has been transferred to him by a person who is himself an assignee of the original decree-holders. The 4th respondent, who is the judgment-debtor, contends that the decree itself is fraudulent, that the transferor of the present applicant is bound to pay him a certain sum of money which he is entitled to set-off against the decree debt and the applicant who is the son-in-law of the transferor took the assignment with notice of his claim and that he had already instituted a suit against the transferor.
2. The lower Court, without deciding any of the questions in issue between the parties, held that the assignment should not be recognised as it was made after notice of the suit by the 4th respondent. We think this order is not right. We are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge should decide whether the transfer is valid and the petitioner is entitled to execute the decree.
3. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge, and direct him to restore the petition to his file and dispose of it according to law. Costs will abide the result.