1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 against a decision of the learned Additional District's Judge of the 24-Pergannahs, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Diamond Harbour. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover the amount that might be found due to him on taking an account from the first defendant. The plaintiff sued as the transferee of an actionable claim that had been transferred to him by the pro forma defendant, the pro forma defendant having been the principal and the defendant No. 1 his agent. The case was contested in the Courts below on the question as to whether the right was capable of transfer on the ground that the right to recover the money which might be found due on taking the account from the defendant-No. 1 was a mere right to sue within the meaning of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, and was, therefore, not capable of transfer. The right to call for accounts is moveable property and, that being so, the transfer of an interest in that comes within the third section of-the Transfer of Property Act a's the transfer of an actionable claim. The only difficulty that has arisen in this case has been caused by the fact that the transferor is a defendant and that the defaulting agent, the defendant No. 1, has got hold of the transferor, so that he would not allow his name to be used as a co-plaintiff along with the present plaintiff. That, however, does not matter, because I am quite clear that the transfer is not a transfer of a mere right to sue but is a transfer of an actionable claim within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act on which the plaintiff can maintain the suit in his own name. In my opinion, the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is correct. The present appeal, therefore, fails and must be dismissed With costs.
2. I agree.