The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Transfer of Property Act, specifically Section 6(e), and the transferability of the right to sue for accounts.

JUDGMENT

Suhrawardy, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit for accounts and is directed against an order of remand made by the learned Additional District Judge of Midnapur.

2. The facts of the case have been shortly stated as follows in the judgment of the Court of first instance:

This is a suit for accounts. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant No. 1 was Gomastha under the pro forma defendant Ho. 2 in Mouzas Barkola and Mirzapore and that he executed a security kabuliyat for his work in favour of the pro forma defendant on the 7th Kartik 1306 A. 'S. mortgaging the plaint schedule properties and on the strength of that kabuliyat he did the Gomaatha work from Kartik 1306 to Magh 1327 A. S.. that on the 5th Falgun 1327 A.S., the pro forma defendant No. 2 sold off to plaintiff all his rights in the two mouzas together with his rights to get accounts and papers from defendant No 1 and to recover from him the sums due thereon, by a registered kobala taking due and proper consideration thereof, that on the basis of the security kabuliyat this defendant No, 1 was to submit all collection papers and explain those and pay off all sums found due thereon, and he was to be liable for all rents and decretal dues barred by limitation owing to his default and to get 1 rupee 4 annas monthly pay for his work, that the defendant No. 1 submitted and explained his accounts and papers till 1309 A.S. to pro forma defendant No. 2 and from 1310 A. S., he submitted no accounts and papers to him except a Thoka only of 1327 A.S. and as per hisab given in schedule " ka " of the plaint, the plaintiff, on the basis of the kobala in his favour, asks for such accounts and papers provisionally valuing his claim at Rs. 937-15 annas 18 3/4 gandas. It is also stated in the plaint that after the plaintiff's kobala such accounts and papers were demanded from defendant No. 1 on 11th Falgun 1327 A. Section but no such accounts wore submitted.

3. The learned Munsif on a construction of the deed of sale, held (i) that the plaintiff did not purchase the rights of defendant No. 2 under the mortgage kabuliyat executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, and (n) that the plaintiff, if he purchased anything at all, purchased the right to sue for accounts, which is unassignable u/s 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act. In the result he dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge reversed both these findings and remanded the case for determination on the merits which, in the circumstances of this case, must mean for taking accounts from the defendant No. 1.

4. When the Courts below have differed on the construction of the deed of sale executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff, it becomes necessary to closely examine the terms thereof. In the heading of the document, it is stated that the sale is in respect of the mouzas belonging to defendant No. 2 together with back rents from tenants for a sum of Rs. 720 which is the full consideration for the transfer. In para. 2 after a description of the mouzas sold and their appurtenances the following passage appears : "And Tahbil (cash) due to me and my dues from the Gomastha together with the right of taking accounts from the Gomastha and the right of taking the papers from him." Para 6 runs thus:

If the Thoka or the Karcha of the year 1327 filed by the Gomastha be not correct, you will make enquiries yourself and will ascertain the correct amount; you will be entitled to realisa the said amount together with, the amount, realised by the Gomastha from the date of his kabuliyat and the rents which had become time barred through the negligence of the Gomastha together with damages according to your calculation or as will be ascertained by Curt from the said Gomastha.

5. Reading these clauses together and regard being had to the general tenor of the deed, it seems clear that what the plaintiff purchased was the right to take; account from the defendant No. 1 and to recover such su