The central legal point established in the judgment is that the assignment of a decree and the creation of valid charges on sums of money due under a decree are valid under the law.

Macnair, A J C—The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was the owner of a decree assigned to him by defendants 2 and 3. The lower appellate Court has held that the factum of assignment has been proved. He states that the witnesses for the plaintiff tell a consistent and a probable story and he is unable to rely solely on the evidence of Champsi (D. W. 2) and his account. The plaintiff obtained a declaration in the first Court, and the first appeal was dismissed.

2. It is strongly urged before me that the finding of fact is incorrect. Reliance is placed on the fact that the plaintiff did not get his name substituted in the suit which resulted in a decree in favour of defendants 2 and 3. But this fact has been fully considered in para. 14 of the first Court's judgment. It is also stated that the Bombay Courts have come to a different conclusion, when deciding the suit instituted by defendants 2 and 3. I do not see in, what manner the opinion of the Bombay Courts, based an the evidence produced before them, is relevant. There is no reason, then, for interference with the finding of fact.

3. It is next urged that what purported to be an assignment had no effect in law, as a mere right to sue could not be transferred. The remarks of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Subhadraydmma v. Venkatapati Raju,1924 AIR(PC) 132 appear to me to conclude this point. At p. 249 [of 48 Mad.-Ed.] the decision of Parker, J., in Glegg v. Bromley, 1912 3 KB 474 is quoted with approval. The facts in Glegg v. Bromley, 1912 3 KB 474 appear similar to those in the present ease. One Mrs. G was plaintiff in an action for slander and assigned to her husband, as security for debts due to him any amount which she might obtain as a result of that action. Mrs. G obtained a verdict, and when one H endeavoured to attach the amount due from the defendant the husband of Mrs. G successfully claimed the sum under his assignment it was held that the assignment was not an assignment of a mere expectancy or of a cause of action.

4. Similarly, in Palaniappa v. Lakshmanan, 1893 16 ILR(Mad) 429 it was held that a valid charge might be created on a sum of money due under a decree, although at the time of the creation no decree was in. existence. The legal ground urged by the appellant therefore fails. The appeal is dismissed with costs on the appellant.

5. I add that it has been admitted before me that the decree is no longer in existence, and the result of this appeal affects nothing but the distribution of costs.

Final Result : Dismissed