Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the right to continue a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput has devolved upon the respondent. The suit was instituted by one T.S. Abdul Kuddus Sahib on the 9th March, 1934. The plaintiff asked for a decree for Rs. 15,000 as damages flowing from the wrongful termination of a lease in his favour and the entry upon the' leased premises of the defendants, who are the appellants. The lease was dated the 9th September, 1930 and was for a term of three years which commenced on the 15th of that month. The premises leased consisted of a building which was being used as a cinema theatre. The agreement between the parties was that the lessors and the lessee should share equally in the rents of certain shops which were on the premises and the moneys derived from the letting of the theatre for entertainments. The plaintiff averred that the lessors resented the fact that he was entitled to half the rents of the property and as the result of this they entered upon the premises wrongfully and ousted him therefrom. He also averred that valuable articles left by him upon the premises had been removed and that other articles had been damaged. The sum of Rs. 15,000 was made up of profits which he claimed he had been deprived of as the result of wrongful action of the appellants and the loss he had suffered as the result of the removal from the premises of articles belonging to him. The plaintiff's claim was based entirely on the alleged wrongful action of the appellants as the two concluding paragraphs of the plaint, Nos. 18 and 19, emphasize. They . read as follows:
18. The plaintiff claims an aggregate sum of Rs. 15,000 by way of damages against the defendants and pays a court-fee of the value of Rs. 937-7-0.
19. The cause of action for this suit arose at Conjeevaram within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court on 9th March, 1931, the date when the defendants wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiff and subsequently de die in diem till 9th September, 1931, during which period the defendants wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiff in breach of the terms of the agreement
2. On the 17th May, 1937, the plaintiff sold the whole of his assets to the respondent under a registered deed of sale. The sale deed has not been printed in full and it is said that the portion which has been printed has not been correctly translated. It is, however, common ground that the respondent bought 'the profit and loss' of this suit and that the deed purported to confer upon him the right to conduct it. The plaintiff died five days later after its execution. The plaintiff's sister, his brother and the respondent each applied to the Court of the Subordinate Judge to be allowed to continue the suit. The sister and the brother each claimed the right as the legal representative of the deceased. The respondent claimed under the deed of sale of the 17th May, 1937. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the application of the sister and the brother, but granted that of the respondent. The defendants lessors then appealed to this Court. Their appeal was' heard by Wadsworth, J., who concurred in the decision of the Subordinate Judge so far as it concerned the respondent. The sister and the brother did not contest the Subordinate Judge's finding that they were not entitled to be brought on record. This appeal is from the judgment of Wadsworth, J.
3. Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act says that a mere right to sue cannot be transferred; and it is accepted by the learned Counsel that as the result of this provision there cannot be an assignment of a suit which has been filed for the purpose of recovering damages, either in contract or in tort. It is lawful, however, for a plaintiff in a pending suit to assign the. benefit which he may obtain under the decree to be passed in the suit; but this does not give the assignee of the fruits of the action the right to interfere in proceedings in the action--vide Glegg v. Bromley (1912) 3 K.B. 474, which was accepted by the Privy Council as correctly stating the law in Subhadrayamma v. Venkatapathi Raju (1924) 47 M.L.J. 93 : L.R. 52 IndAp 1 : I.L.R. 48 Mad. 230 . Therefore the right which the plaintiff purported to confer upon the respondent of conducting this suit was ineffective. All that the deed could confer upon him was the right to the fruits of the litigation.
4. The Court has merely to consider the nature of the suit and as the plaint can only be read as embodying a claim for damages resulting from the alleged wrongful entry of the appellants upon the demised premises, the suit cannot be continued by the respondent.
5. For these reasons we allow the appeal with costs here and below.