SUNDAR Vs. RAMDASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that the Pauper O.P. was filed before the Subordinate Court, Paramakudi to declare the petitioner as pauper and to exempt him from payment of Court fee for Rs. 8,00,000/-, so as to enable him to recover Rs. 8,00,000/- from the respondents as compensation. However, even before numbering the Pauper O.P., the Lower Court rejected the Pauper O.P., on the ground that the said Pauper O.P. was not maintainable. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Lower Court, the petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition on various grounds. Perused the records. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A mere running of the eye over the averments as found set out in the Pauper O.P., one could discern and infer that the case of the petitioner is that an Advocate has assigned his right to the petitioner to sue the defendants and claim compensation for they having allegedly defamed him. The Lower Court dismissed the said Pauper O.P., on the ground that such an alleged right to sue for damages on the part of the said Advocate cannot be assigned in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) At this juncture, I would like to extract hereunder Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which contains the definition of actionable claim and also Sections 6 and 130 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:

(3.) I would like to refer to certain excerpts from "Mulla, The Transfer of Property Act, Tenth Edition by G.C. Bharuka" thus: