1923.   Present: Schneider J.

CADER v. SAIBU.





 331-C. R. Jaffna, 15,131.

Payment by judgment -debtor to person seizing decree after assignment by judgment-creditor-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 254, 340, and 349.

Plaintiff in this case assigned his decree to substituted-plaintiff on November 4. In action No. 5,299 of the same Court, a Chetty obtained judgment against plaintiff and defendant. The Chetty seized the decree in this case in favour of the plaintiff on November 9. The defendant paid the Chetty on November 10 Rs. 65 in full satisfaction. Thereafter the substituted plaintiff issued writ against defendant to recover Rs. 123-64.

Held, that defendant was not entitled to get credit for the Rs. 65 paid as aforesaid.

'' A judgment-creditor who seizes a decree in another action is to be deemed an assignee of the latter decree only for the limited purpose of execution of the decree seized for the satisfaction of the decree in his favour. He cannot be regarded as entitled to all the rights of an ordinary assignee."

" Once a writ under which a decree is seized is satisfied, it follows that the seizure is, ipso facto, released, and the decree which has been seized is released from the burden of the seizure and all results consequent thereon."

'THE facts are set out in the judgment.

Croos Da Brera (with him Ramachandra), for defendant, appellant.-Under section 254 of the Code, the judgment-creditor, at whose instance a decree of Court is seized, becomes an assignee thereof. The assignment operates as from the date of seizure, and the assignee is entitled to all the privileges of a private assignment. The assignment in favour of the substituted-plaintiff may * have been made prior to the seizure, but so long as it was not notified to Court, the debtor was not obliged to consider it. The payment of the debt by the defendant to the judgment-creditor in case No. 5,299 was made in ignorance of the assignment to substituted-plaintiff. Such payment must be taken to be made

in good faith, and the debtor should be discharged. A private 1928. assignment must be taken as non-existent so long as it is not coder v. notified to Court as required by section 339 of the Code. Under the Roman-Dutch law it is clear that unless the debtor has received formal intimation from the cessionary, he can safely pay to the cedent or to a subsequent cessionary who has given notice. Counsel cited Berwick's Voet, p. 104; 3 Burge, pp. 547-541; and 4 Halsbury's Laws of England 379.

Coder, for substituted-plaintiff, respondent.-Section 254 merely says that a seizing creditor becomes an assignee from the date of decree, but in this case there was nothing to seize, as the debtor had by prior deed divested himself of his interest in the substituted-plaintiff's favour. Section 254 says that the assignment is good " so far as that person's interest extends." This clearly contemplates the existence of some interest in the plaintiff. It is the duty of the debtor to pay to any person legally entitled to receive payment. The substituted-plaintiff's assignment was prior in date, and he was entitled to payment in preference to the subsequent assignee by operation of law. Even the seizing-creditor was not substituted as required by section 339, and the debtor should have waited until this was done.

Croos Da Brera.-Under the Roman-Dutch law, even in the case of two private assignments, payment to the subsequent assignee without notice from the former is good, and discharges debtor. An assignee by operation of law ought not to be placed on a different footing.

February 14, 1923. SCHNEIDER J.-

An interesting and important question is raised by this appeal. It will be useful to state the facts.

On November 2,1921, decree was entered in this action in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 73.45, inclusive of costs.

On November 4 this decree was assigned by the plaintiff to the substituted-plaintiff, who is the res