MOHINI KAPOOR, J. - (1.) IN execution petition moved by the present non -petitioner, the petitioner preferred objections which were disallowed by the Executing Court, viz. the Civil Judge, Kota, by order dated 19 -3 -1981. The petitioner's appeal against the rejection of her objections was also dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2 Kota, on 29 -11 -1986. It is against this order that she has come in this revision petition.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the property in dispute belonged to Shri Vasu Pujjiyaji, Kota (here in after referred to as the temple), and the petitioner's mother Smt. Ida was a tenant in two shops of this temple at a monthly rent of Rs. 8/ -p.m. A suit for rent and eviction was filed on behalf of the temple, which was decreed on 22 -4 -1963. Smt. Ida preferred an appeal before the District Judge Kota, and that was also dismissed on 27 -5 -1965. Thereafter no proceedings took place in court till the year 1975, when the present respondent moved an application for the execution of decree for rent and possession of the property, for which decree was passed. According to the non -petitioner he applied for the execution of the decree because he had purchased the property from the temple, on 12 -5 -1973, by virtue of a registered sale -deed and as such had became owner of the same and was entitled to execute the decree passed in favour of the vendor. Two objections were raised by the present -petitioner. The first one was that after the dismissal of the appeal filed by Smt. Ida, the matter was settled outside the Court and in accordance with this settlement, one of the apartment was handed -over to the temple while the other remained in possession of the petitioner and the rent of this apartment was fixed at Rs. 10/ -p.m. Earlier she was paying Rs. 8/ - p.m. for two apartments. From 1965, onwards, first Smt. Ida and thereafter the petitioner continued to pay rent of Rs. 10/ -p.m. and at times even obtained receipts some of which have been produced and the temple took no steps to get the premises vacated. According to the first objection the matter between the parties was compromised and as such the question of executing the decree did not arise. The second objection of the petitioner is that the sale -deed in favour of the non -petitioner does not specifically make a provision that the rights under the decree, which was obtained by the temple have also been transferred and in absence of a specific assignment of the decree, the transferee of the property is not entitled to execute the decree.
(3.) THE reply of the non -petitioners to these objections was that the compromise alleged by the petitioner was not verified before any Court and as such could not be acted upon and as regards the second objection, it was contended that by virtue of Section 146, CPC and Order 21, Rule 16, CPC, in which an explanation has been added, the transferee of a decree could apply for the execution of a decree without a separate assignment.;