Kailasan Pillai V. Palaniappa Chettiar

1934 Present: Macdonell C.J., Garvin S.P.J., Drieberg
and Akbar JJ.

KAILASAN PILLAI v. PALANIAPPA CHETTIAR.

153-D. C. (Inty.) Matara, 6,364.

Decree-Assignment in writing-Seizure of decree by creditor after assignment -Priority -Sanction of Court for assignment unnecessary-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 234 and 339.

Where, after a decree has been assigned in writing, it is seized by a creditor of the assignor, the creditor is not entitled to priority merely because the assignee has made no application for execution under section 339 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The holder of the earlier assignment has preference.

It is not necessary for the validity of an assignment of a decree that it should be sanctioned by Court.

CASE referred by Akbar J. and de Silva A.J. for determination by a Bench of four Judges.

The material facts as stated by Akbar J. are as follows:-Plaintiff obtained a mortgage decree against the defendant on March 11, 1931, but he assigned this decree to the appellant by bond No. 309 of September 2, 1931, which was duly registered by the appellant. The respondent to

this appeal who was a judgment-creditor of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document