We think the Lower Appellate Court's order can, be justified by reference to Sect. 146 of the Civil Procedure Code. In accordance with the dictum of Seshagiri Aiyar, J., in Sitaramaswami v. Lakshmi Narasimha(1) the words ‘claiming under’ in that section are wide enough to cover even cases of devolution mentioned in O. 22, R. 10.
It is urged that, here the respondent-petitioner is a transferee of property concerned in the decree, which he desires to execute, not of that decree itself. We do not think the distinction substantial. For we cannot understand how one person can be claiming under another, in respect of property, when he does not claim under him, equally in respect of the decree dealing with the property. Taking this view, we dismiss the appeal against appellate order with costs.
K.V.SAppeal dismissed.