1. We entirely agree with the findings of the learned District Judge and the reasons he has given for them. The appellant's case as to the date of Ankamma's death is entirely unsupported by any credible evidence. We dismiss the appeal with costs.
2. The question argued in the Memorandum of objections is whether a claim for past mesne profits could be validly transferred having regard to Clause (e) of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act. We are of opinion that the Lower Court is right in holding that it cannot be; Shy am Ghand Kundoo v. The Land Mortgage Bank of India I.L.R. (1883) C. 695 and Pragi Lal v. Fatechand I.L.R. (1882) A, 207 support this view. The recent decision of this court in Varahaswami v. Ramachandra Raju : (1913)24MLJ298 after the amendment of Clause (e) of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act is to the same effect. See also Abu Mahomed v. S.C. Chunder I.L.R. (1908) C. 345 The respondents refer to King v. Victoria Insurance Company (1896) A.C. 250 But the case is not in point, as the right of an insurer under the contract of insurance to be subrogated to the rights and remedies of the assured cannot be regarded as arising merely from the transfer of a right of action. We are not prepared to agree that the view laid down in Warren's 'Choses in Action' p. 161, that a right to recover damages for an assault is assignable correctly expresses the law applicable in this country assuming that it does the law applicable in England. The plaintiffs are entitled to interest on the profits of each year at 6 p. c. per annum. With this slight modification we dismiss the Memorandum of objections with costs.