KULATHU IYER Vs. GEEVARGHESE KOSHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant - the appellant in these appeals - owed some money to the 2nd plaintiff, who in turn owed a larger sum to a Bank in which the former was interested. The 1st plaintiff, who is a Vakil of the place, got an assignment from the 2nd plaintiff of his debt and they joined to institute this suit on 18-2-1125 claiming Rs. 705/- odd with interest before and after suit. On the same day as the institution of the suit the defendant credited the amount in the accounts of the Bank against the 2nd plaintiffs liability to it. So the question was whether the credit given in the Banks account or the assignment in favour of the 1st plaintiff was to have precedence. The Courts below concurred to find the credit entry in the Banks account not to have been made with the 2nd plaintiffs assent and to decree the suit for Rs. 620. 65p. In doing so the Munsiff disallowed interest till date of decree and costs in disapproval of the 1st plaintiffs conduct in having taken an assignment of the actionable claim with knowledge that it would involve litigation. Both the 1st plaintiff and the defendant went in appeal before the Subordinate Judge, who affirmed the decree and allowed interest from date of suit and the 1st plaintiffs costs in the suit. Hence these second appeals.

(2.) Two questions arise here for determination: firstly, the defendants claim to benefit of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958; and secondly the 1st plaintiffs right to costs and interest. As regards the former, the question has been taken for the first time before this Court of second appeal. The status of the defendant as an agriculturist is not admitted by the respondents. The question of benefit of Act XXXI of 1958 has only to be left open to be moved and adjudicated in other appropriate proceedings.

(3.) As regards costs, the Subordinate Judge has not given any reason to reverse the discretion exercised by the Munsiff. As early as 1900 there had been an interdiction against lawyers taking assignments of actionable claims, which continues to this day. Civil Circular No. 8 of 1076 (1900) issued by the High Court of Travancore read: