1. Without going into the question whether the decision in Paupayya v. Narasannah 2 M.L 216 is correct or not, the only point directly decided in that case was that the principal whose agent obtained a decree in his own name cannot be treated as the decree-holder and cannot make such an assignment of the decree as will entitle the assignee to execute the decree.
2. We think that Ghulzari Lal v. Daya Ram 9 A. 46 was rightly decided and the recognition of a transferee from an unrecognized transferee seems seldom to have been objected to in practice see Kothandapani Naidu v. Kuppusawmi Naicker 23 Ind. Cas. 951 where no objection such as prevailed with the District Court in this case seems to have been taken.
3. We set aside the District Judge's decision and remand the case for disposal by the District Court of Appeal Suit No. 385 of 1914 on its file after considering the other questions (such as limitation, benami, etc.,) raised in that appeal.
4. Costs will abide.