SHRI PANDBY J. - (1.)THE only question for consideration in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is whether two of the defendants can execute the entire decree for costs in a case in which the Court of first instance directed the plaintiffs to pay to each of the nine defendants the costs incurred by him. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff the High Court also awarded costs jointly payable to all the defendants without interefering with the direction about the costs of the first Court. THE question arises only in relation to execution of the decree for costs of the first Court.
(2.)THE executing Court held that two of the defendants could execute the entire decree for costs of the first Court. In appeal, Krishnan J. took the view that, although there was a joint decree, the share of each defendant had been apportioned and since, by virtue of the apportionment, each defendant; was competent to levy execution for his share, he was incompetent to take advantage of the jointness of the decree for levying execution for the entirety.
Having heard the counsel, we have formed the opinion that the conclusion reached by the learned single Judge is correct, though our reasons for taking that view are different.

Order 21, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure on which reliance is placed, reads:

"(1) Where a decree has been passed jointly in favour of more persons than one, any one or more of such persons may, unless the decree imposes any condition to the contrary, apply for the execution of the whole decree for the benefit of them all, or, where any of them has died, for the benefit of the survivors and the legal representatives of the deceased. (2) Where the Court sees sufficient cause for allowing the decree to be executed on an application made under this rule, it shall make such order as it deems necessary for protecting the interests of the persons who have not joined in the application". Before Rule 15 can apply, the following two conditions must be fulfilled by decree sought to be executed: (i) It should be passed in favour of more persons than one. (ii) It should also be passed jointly in their favour.

(3.)IT is not enough that there is a decree in favour of more persons than one and that fact alone will not necessarily attract Rule 15. In. this connection we may refer to the enabling provision contained in Order 1, Rule 1 of the Code which, in certain circumstances therein indicated, enables several plaintiffs claiming severally different reliefs arising out of the same act or transaction to join in one suit as plaintiffs. IT is implicit in Rule 1 that a decree may be passed severally in favour of more persons than one, entitling each to claim the relief awarded to him. Rule 15 applies only when a decree "has been passed jointly in favour of more persons than one".
As Mulla points out, there is a joint decree, as contemplated by Rule 15, when A and B obtain a decree against C for Rs. 5,000. The reason is that she is under an obligation to pay to A and B jointly a sum of Rs. 5,000. They cannot divide the decretal amount among themselves and then severally execute the decree for portions of the amount. Also, apart from Rule 15, neither of them acting alone, can either execute the decree or give a valid discharge. Our attention was, however, drawn to the following observations of Mulla:

"It is not the less a joint decree, because shares of A and B in the decretal amount have been determined by the decree. Thus, if it is determined by the decree that the share of A is Es. 2,000 and the share of B is Rs. 3,000, the decree is still a joint decree. But though the decree in such a case is a joint decree, the interest of A and B being determined by the decree, either of them may apply for execution to the extent of his interest".
For this view, Mulla referred to Hurrish Chunder Chowdhary v. Kali Sunduri Debia(10 IA 4). In that case, the Judicial Committee grounded its opinion on the consideration that the effect of the judgment which had to be enforced was that the second plaintiff Kali Sundari was entitled to possession of a half of the estate in question. Reliance was also placed upon the following observations in Sri Chundra Chur Deo v. Musammat Shyam Kumari(ILR 11 Pat. 445);
"But it is to be remembered in the first place that the term 'joint decree' is wide enough to apply to a case where the rights of several parties have been determined by one and the same decree and in the second place that in this particular case the last decree passed by the Privy Council was admittedly a joint decree in the sense that the liability of the appellants to the various contesting respondents was not separately assessed or specified. If, therefore, the last decree into which the decree of the Courts below has merged in a joint decree and it is this final decree which is to be executed, such a case would, in my opinion, come within Order XXI, Rule 15". (Pages 455-6.)
As we have indicated earlier, for applying Rule 15 what is required is a decree passed jointly in favour of more persons than one and it is not enough that the rights of several parties have been determined by one and the same decree. Secondly, the Patna High Court proceeded on the view that the decrees of the two Courts below had merged in the final decree, which was admittedly a joint decree.