Skip to content


Konijetti Veerasawmy Vs. Varada Veerasawamy Naidu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in16Ind.Cas.708
AppellantKonijetti Veerasawmy
RespondentVarada Veerasawamy Naidu and ors.
Cases ReferredTransfer of Property Act. Rama Iyen v. Venkatachellam Patter
Excerpt:
transfer of property act (iv of 1882), section 130 - assignment of debt--instalment bond, assignment of rights under--assignment made by letter to assignee accompanied by delivery of bond, validity of. - 1. two points are taken in this second appeal. the first is that exhibit viii is not an assignment within section 133 of the transfer of property act. rama iyen v. venkatachellam patter 30 m.k 75 : 1 m.l.t. 329 : 16 m.l.j. 554 was referred to by the appellant. in our opinion, that case is more in favour of the validity of a document executed in the circumstances of this case. there is no force in this contention. it is then urged that the district judge has not considered exhibit b, an affidavit made by the assignor. the district munsif has considered it and is of opinion that it cannot be used against the 2nd defendant in this case. we have also considered it and, after giving due weight to it, find no reason to disturb the district judge's finding that the transactions evidenced by.....
Judgment:

1. Two points are taken in this second appeal. The first is that Exhibit VIII is not an assignment within Section 133 of the Transfer of Property Act. Rama Iyen v. Venkatachellam Patter 30 M.K 75 : 1 M.L.T. 329 : 16 M.L.J. 554 was referred to by the appellant. In our opinion, that case is more in favour of the validity of a document executed in the circumstances of this case. There is no force in this contention. It is then urged that the District Judge has not considered Exhibit B, an affidavit made by the assignor. The District Munsif has considered it and is of opinion that it cannot be used against the 2nd defendant in this case. We have also considered it and, after giving due weight to it, find no reason to disturb the District Judge's finding that the transactions evidenced by Exhibit VIII and Exhibit II and the endorsement on Exhibit A are genuine and that there is, therefore, a discharge prior to the attachment.

2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //