POKAR Vs. SURAJMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal and the only question calling for determination is whether the suit had been instituted by a properly authorized person. The facts relating to this litigation are these :

(2.) HIMMATMAL had a certain sum of money due to him from Pokar and accordingly the latter executed a ckhata' in his favour. HIMMATMAL died leaving behind a widow. He also had a brother Bhikamchand and his son Mangilal who were both alive on the date HIMMATMAL died. After his death, the widow herself took no action in respect of the 'khata' in dispute but Mangilal son of Bhikamchand did, inasmuch as he assigned it to Surajmal and the suit, out of which , this appeal has arisen was instituted by the latter for the recovery of a certain sum of money against Pokar. Pokar raised a number of pleas with most of which this appeal is not concerned. The important plea raised by him was that plaintiff Surajmal was not competent in law to institute the suit inasmuch as he was the assignee of the Khata from Mangilal who was not authorized to make the assignment. Trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned District Judge found in the plaintiff's favour on all the points and decreed the suit holding that Mangilal was the adopted son of HIMMATMAL and that accordingly the assignment in favour of the plaintiff had been properly made by him. The result was that he accepted the appeal and decreed the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.