1. The only question that arises in this Second Appeal is whether without executing an instrument of transfer the claim of a foreman against a prized subscriber can be transferred. The defendant had contended that such an instrument of transfer is absolutely necessary. Both the trial court and the lower appellate court have negatived the contention. Therefore the defendant has come up in Second Appeal to this Court.

2. It will be useful in this context to refer to the relevant portion in the plaint where the 2nd plaintiff's right to get the amount is pointed out. Para 5 in the plaint may be extracted:

The prayer portion in the plaint also has some relevance here. It reads:

The learned Munsiff had pointed out that in the plaint itself the 1st plaintiff had stated that he had assigned his rights to the 2nd plaintiff. Therefore the assignment in favour of the 2nd plaintiff is valid and proper. The learned Subordinate Judge, before whom the appeal against the trial court's decree had come up, had stated that it was contended before him that in any event there should be a formal instrument of transfer in view of S.130 of the Transfer of Property Act as the transfer is of an act