1. The judgment of the lower Court dismissing plaintiffs suit is based on a wholly erroneous view of law. The learned Judge holds that the fact that the contract was broken by defendant long before the date of the assignment in plaintiffs favour deprives him of the normal right of an assignee of a contract for specific performance to sue for specific performance, and reduces his legal right to a mere right to sue," which is not transferable. The ruling in Venkateswara Aiyar v. Raman Nambudri [1916] 3 M.L.W. 435, which the learned Judge quotes, is, as correctly quoted by him to the opposite effect, viz., that the term a "mere right to sue" is only applicable where the specific enforcement of the contract cannot be obtained.

2. We can hardly conceive that the learned Judge meant to lay down that the mere refusal, however, often it may be repeated, by a party to perform a contract or a mere denial of the existence of the contract deprives the other party of the right to sue for specific performance. It is that very refusal or denial which gives the other party his cause of action for a suit for specific performance. The learned Judge does not hold that a right to specific perfo