ORDER
A. Gopal Rao, J.
1. Petitioners in this revision petition are the nominees of the decree-holder. Third respondent-herein is the decree-holder, respondents 1 and 2 are the judgment-debtors, Respondents 4 to 7 are the assignees of the decree and the 8th respondent is the General Power of Attorney Holder of the decree-holder (R. 3). The suit, O.S. No. 29 of 1965, filed on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by the 3rd respondent-decree holder for specific performance against respondents 1 and 2, was dismissed on 17-4-1970. The appeal, CCCA 14/1972 filed by the third respondent-decree-holder in this Court was allowed on 27-10-76 on 6-7-1989, this Court amended the decree passed in CCCA 14/72 to the effect that the sale deeds may be executed by the judgment-debtors in favour of the decree-holder or his nominees. On 15-1-1988, the decree-holder (R.3) assigned the decree in favour of respondents 4 to 7 herein through his G.P.A. holder (8th Respondent). Respondents 4 to 7 filed E.A. 17/1988 in the lower Court to recognize them as the assignees of the decree and the same was allowed on 30-4-1992. The judgment-debtors/respondents 1 and 2 carried the matter to the High Court by filing CRP 1579/1992, aggrieved by the order passed in E.A.17/1988 by the lower Court. That C.R.P. 1579/1992 was dismissed by this Court on 16-10-1992, confirming the order passed by the lower Court in E.A. 17/88 recognizing respondents 4 to 7 as the assignees of the decree. The assignees/respondents 4 to 7 filed E.P.20/91 in the lower Court for execution of the decree and the draft sale deeds to be executed are also filed in E.P. 20/91 in the lower Court, for approval. Judgment-debtors/respondents 1 and 2 contested the said application, contending that there cannot be several sales and there can only be one sale deed in favour of the third respondent/ decree-holder, pursuant to the decree passed in the suit for specific performance. On 30-3-1993, the objection raised by the judgment-debtors/ respondents land 2 was over-ruled. Civil Revision Petition No. 1919/1993 filed by the judgment-debtors/respondents 1 and 2 against the said order of the lower Court was dismissed by this Court on 14-6-1993. The judgment-debtors/ respondents 1 and 2 carried the matter to the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) 11381/94 and that S.L.P. was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 12-9-1994, after notice to the respondents-therein. Petitioners in this revision petition filed the suit, O.S. 28 of 1993, on the file of the II Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for specific performance of the nomination made by the decree- holder on 16-8-1987. All the respondents-herein as well as the decree-holder are impleaded as defendants in that suit. LA. No. 16/1993 was filed by the petitioners in that suit for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from executing the decree in O.S. 29/1965. That petition was dismissed on 29-4-1994. Thereafter, on 5-10-1994, petitioners-herein filed E.A.21 /1994 in the said Court claiming that the nomination in their favour is earlier to the assignment of the decree made by the decree-holder in favour of respondents 4 to 7 and therefore, they must be recognized as the nominees for the decree passed in O.S. 29 /1965, in preference to the subsequent assignment of the decree by the decree-holder in favour of respondents 4 to 7 herein. That E.A. 21 /94 was opposed by respondents 4 to 7 in the lower Court. On appreciation of the material placed before it, the lower Court dismissed E.A.21/94, holding that the said petition filed under Section 47 C.P.C. is not maintainable; that the nomination of the petitioners by the decree-holder is not capable of being pressed into service for the purpose of ousting the assignees to execute the decree is question; and that the assignment of the decree in favour respondents 4 to 7 has already been recognized, and the same has become final.
2. As mentioned already, aggrieved by the abovesaid order of the lower Court, petitioners in E.A.21/1994 in E.P.20/91 in O.S.29/1965 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, have filed this revision petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Executing Court has got the authority and jurisdiction to decide as to who, as between the petitioners-herein and respondents 4 to 7 herein, can represent the decree-holder. In other words, he contended that there is no need to file a separate suit for resolving this dispute and the same must be decided by the Executing Court only, in a petition filed under Section 47 CPC.
4. The respective learned Counsel for the respondents, in this revision petition, have however, contended that under the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has got the jurisdiction to decide any dispute between the parties to the suit only as to who should represent the decree- holder or the judgment-debtor, as the case may be, but the Court has no power, authority or jurisdiction to inquire into the dispute between two rival claimants to decide as to who, among them, should represent the decree-holder or the judgment-debtor, as the case may be. They further contended that any assignment of the decree by the decree-holder by itself does not give the assignees, the right to take part in execution proceedings, unless and until the said assignment has been recognized by the Court.
5. In view of the rival contentions mentioned above, the point for determination in this revision petition is, whether the order passed by the Court below in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners is correct?
6. Before going into the merits of the contentions of the respective parties, it is necessary and useful to notice the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. Section 47 C.P.C. reads thus:
“47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree:
(a) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
(2) (Omitted by Amendment Act, 1976)
(3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.
Explanation I:- For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.
Explanation II-(a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and
(b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.”
Sub-section (2) of Section 47 C.P.C. (which was omitted by the 1976 Amendment Act), was in the following terms:
“The Court may, subject to any objection as to limitation or jurisdiction, treat a proceeding under this section as a suit or a suit as a proceeding and may, if necessary, order payment of any additional Court-fee.”
8. The leading decision on this point is Annamalai Mudali v. Ramasami Mudali, AIR 1941 Madras 161 (F.B.). In that decision, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court comprising five learned Judges, have laid down the law, as under:-
” A stranger auction purchaser at a sale held in execution of a money decree and applying for possession against purchaser at a private sale is the representative of the judgment-debtor. The contest not being a contest between the parties to the suit or their representatives, but a contest between persons claiming under one of the parties, the case does not fall within Section 47, and the stranger auction-purchaser is hot entitled to apply for possession as against the judgment-debtor or his representative- in-interest under Section 47. When the judgment-debtor or any one at his instigation resists or obstructs the auction-purchaser the latter must proceed in accordance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 97. ………… Section 47 does not apply to a case where the dispute arises between a party and his own representative or between the two persons who both represent the same party. The aggrieved party’s remedy in such a case is by way of a suit.”
The above Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in T. Hema Bala Sundari v. P. Sakuntalamma, and it was held in that Division Bench decision that any dispute relating to the rights of two auction-purchasers representing the same party in two different suits, would not fall within the ambit of Section 47 C.P.C. Same is the view taken by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Mallari Rao v. Sivagnana, AIR 1944 Madras 11 and in the decision in Sankaralingam v. Ramaswami, AIR 1945 Madras 25.
9. A two-Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court, in Venubai Guracharya v. Damodar Vyasrao, AIR 1933 Bombay 396 ruled that – “Sub-section 3(3) is ancillary to Sub-section (1) of Section 47 C.P.C. and comes into operation only where there is a question arising between the parties to the suit or their representative relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. It has no application to a case in which the dispute is between two rival representatives of one party”.
10. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in Shanker Lal v. Shyam Sunder, AIR 1934 All. 730 ruled that- “a decision of a disputed between two sets of persons who are claiming to be the heirs of the deceased-judgment debtor is not at all a dispute between the decree-holder on the one side and the judgment-debtor on the other. Hence, Section 47 is not applicable and the decision is not open to appeal”.
11. The above-mentioned decisions have clearly laid down, beyond any doubt, that the dispute between two rival claimants, (would not fall within the ambit of Section 47, CPC) and the only remedy open to the concerned is to file a suit.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court Annamalai Mudali v. Ramasami Mudali (1 supra) was rendered prior to the omission of Sub-section (2) of Section 47 C.P.C. and, therefore, the principle laid down in that Full Bench decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case.
13. The above contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners had to be rejected, for the simple reason that a Division Bench of this Court in T. Hema Bala Sundari v. P. Sakuntalamma (2 supra) has approved the view laid down by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Annamalai Mudali v. Ramasami Mudali (1 supra). The Division Bench decision T. Hema Bala Sundari’s case (2 supra) was rendered after the deletion of Sub-section (2) of Section 47 C.P.C. Same is the view taken in Prabhu Dayal v. Ram Niklal, .
14. In the circumstances, there is no force in the above contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
15. Learned Counsel for the petitioners nextly contended that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents in this case clearly falls under Sub-
section (3) of Section 47C.P.C. and it is the duty of the Court to decide ‘as to whether any person is or is not a representative of a party’.
16. This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is also without force in view of the settled-law that, Sub-section (3) of Section 47 C.P.C. is ancillary to sub-section (1) of Section 47 C.P.C. and comes into operation only where there is a question arising between the parties to the suit or their representatives relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and it has no application to a case in which the dispute is between two rival representatives of one party.
17. In that view of the matter, the decisions, Ademma v. Subbamma, AIR 1942 Madras 714 K. Somayajulu v. Annappa, AIR 1957 A.P. 66 (F.B.) and Sathiraju v. Subbayya, are not of any assistance to the petitioners in this revision petition.
18. As mentioned already the assignment in favour of respondents 4 to 7 herein has already been recognized by the Court by order, dated 30-4-1992 in E.A. No. 17 of 1988 and the same has become final. The alleged nomination of the petitioners-herein by the decree-holder is yet to be recognized as a valid nomination, by the Court. The suit, O.S. No. 28 of 1993, on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed by the petitioners-herein, is still pending.
19. In Ramarao v. Ranganayakulu, a Full Bench of this Court, ruled thus:
“However, the assignment itself cannot invest the assignee with a right to proceed, to impugn the attachment of the said decree by another decree- holder. The reason is that the recognition of the Court is needed to take any steps in enforcement of his rights. …………….Therefore, the first essential requisite for the assignee to proceed with execution is to put in a petition under Order 21, Rule 16, since the permission to execute the decree will be given only after disposing of the objections of the transferor contemplated by that rule.”
20. Having regard to the above, I hold that there are no merits in this revision petition. The order passed by the lower Court is correct. The point is answered accordingly.
21. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs.