This second appeal raises an important question as to the rights of an insurer to sue in his own name to recover damages from a third party, by whose negligence the assured's car met with an accident and wa totally damaged but who was fully indemnified by the insurer under a comprehensive policy. On that question, the courts below have differed, the lower appellate court, in a reversing judgment, holding such a suit to be maintainable and decreeing the suit. One G.H. Morley had insured his car MSP 2228 with the Caledonian Insurance Co., the plaintiff, against comprehensive risks for Rs. 4, 000. On February 6, 1955, on the Madras- Bangalore road, a lorry MDJ 1099, coming from opposite direction and after overtaking a bus, collided with the car causing serious damage to it. The insurer settled the claim of the assured at Rs. 3, 030, treating the case as a total loss and itself taking over the damaged car. The insurer later sold it on April 16, 1955, for Rs. 1, 500 and brought the suit to recover the balance of Rs. 1, 530 from the second defendant, the owner of the lorry, as loss and damages it had sustained by the willful, gross, rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The assured did not figure as a party to the suit either as a plaintiff along with the insurer or as a defendant. The basis of the insurer's claim in the suit was that it was subrogated to the rights of the assured against the defendants, including the right to sue and recover damages from them, and that, in any case, it held an assignment from the assured of all his rights. The factum of negligency by the second defendant's driver, which was in issue, is now concluded by the concurrent findings of the courts below, against the defendants, and this question is no longer reiterated in this courtThe Second Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, who tried the suit, was of the opinion that, though plaintiff had armed itself with a letter of subrogation from the assured to the latter's rights and remedies in respect of damages caused to his vehicle, such a right was not assemble and the letter did not validly clothe the insurer with the right to recover damages. On that view, he held that the suit was not maintainable. If it was, he added, the second defendants would be liable for the suit claim. The plaintiff, however, successfully appealed against the judgment. The Principal Judge, Cuty Civil Court, who disposed of the appeal, thought that a formal assignment of the kind by the assured of his rights and remedies to the insurer was prohibited by section 6[e] of the Transfer of Property Act, but held that the general principle of section 69 of the Indian Contract Act together with the principles applicable to contracts of insurance under which in England, the insurer was able to get an assignment from the assured and institute a suit should help the plaintiff. His further view was that though section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act only enabled a third party, who had been injured by the insured car, to have his remedy against the insurer, the rights of the insurer should be treated as complementary to such rights of third parties against the insurer. He, therefore, decreed the suit against the second defendant

On behalf of the second defendant, who is the appellant in this court, it is not contended that he is not liable, as held by the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, if it be found that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit in its own name. But it is argued that, under the Indian law, as evident from section 6[e] of the Transfer of Property Act, there can be no valid assignment or transfer of a mere right to sue which was all the assured in this case had. The argument is sought to be reinforced by reference to section 130-A of the Transfer of Property Act, which expressly provides for transfer or assignment of a policy out that this implied that in the absence of an express statutory provision as in the case of a policy of a marine insura