Mockett, J.

1. This appeal can be dealt with very briefly because it raises a short but interesting question of construction and its decision depends on the view I take of the construction of a single document. The short facts are as follows: There was a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit, dated the 14th March, 1936 in favour of one Sethu Madhava Rao against, amongst others, the present appellants. There was a final decree in August, 1936. On the 25th July, 1937 the decree was assigned by Sethu Madhava Rao to one Govinda Konan. On the 19th July, 1939, Govinda Konan executed a power of attorney, Ex. D-1 to one Vedavyasachar authorising him to execute the decree. On the 3rd February, 1941, Govinda Konan assigned the decree to Krishnaswami Konar, the present first respondent. On the 6th March 1941, by Ex. P-3, Govinda Konan sent a notice to the judgment debtors and to Vedavyasachar revoking the power of attorney. The execution petition before the lower Court was to recognise the assignment, dated 3rd February, 1941 by Govinda Konan. It should be added that on the 10th and 11th July, 1942 there was a compromise between Vedavyasachar and the appellants. The question that arise