1. In this case what was transferred was not the whole maintenance decree, but only that portion of it which related to the arrears of maintenance that had already accrued due, that being the only portion of the decree which could be transferred. The question is, whether the transfer should be recognised by the Court under Section 232, Civil Procedure Code. It is contended that transfers contemplated under Section 232, Civil Procedure Code, are transfers of the whole decree, and that transfer of a portion cannot be recognised. Kishote Chand Bhakat v. Gisburne and Co. 17 C. 341 which was approved in Muthttnarayana Reddi v. Balkrishna Reddi 19 M. 306 is against this view, and we are prepared to follow it. The transfer then may be recognised if the Court thinks the case is a proper one. We see no reason in this case why the transfer should not be recognised. The transfer is of all the arrears due up to the date of the transfer, and it is not shown that the judgment-debtor will be, in any way, injured. As to the contention that the decree for maintenance cannot be transferred that contention can have no force in so far as the transfer of the decree in respect of arrears accrued is concerned, and that is all that has been transferred. We dismiss the appeal with costs.