Patanjali Sastri, J.
1. The view taken by the lower Court that the plaintiff though, a woman was not entitled to claim the exemption under Section 4 (h) of Act IV of 1938 merely because her assignor a male was not entitled to such exemption is clearly unsupportable. Having taken the assignment the plaintiff became the owner of the debt and when she claims the benefit of the exemption provided by the Act for woman creditors, it is no answer to say that the original payee under the suit note was a male.
2. Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the other conditions necessary for the application of the provision has not been enquired into in the view taken by the lower Court. The decree of the Court below is therefore set aside and the case is remanded for enquiry and disposal according to law. Costs of this Civil Revision Petition will abide and follow.