MUTTAPUKUNTLA CHINNAPAREDDI Vs. MASINENI VENKATARAMANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant sold some properties to respondents 2 and 3. The sale was, however, set aside at the instance of two persons who claimed to be the real owners thereof. Their claim was upheld and the sale by the appellant in favour of respondents 2 and 3 was declared invalid. Thereafter respondents 2 and 3 assigned their right to get the purchase money from the appellant to the first respondent (plaintiff) under Ex. A dated the 9 of February, 1937. The first respondent then filed this suit for recovery of the purchase money from the appellant on the strength of Ex. A the deed of assignment in his favour. The sole question in the second appeal is whether Ex. A is a valid assignment.

(2.) It was urged for the appellant who was the first and the contesting defendant that the right of respondents 2 and 3 which accrued to them as a result of the sale in their favour being set aside, was a right to sue for damages and that being a bare right to sue, it was not assignable at law being opposed to Section 6 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act. Both the lower Courts held that the right which respondents 2 and 3 assigned in favour of the plaintiff 1 respondent was one to recover an ascertained amount and an actionable claim, and not a mere right to sue for damages. The suit was accordingly decreed by both the Courts.

(3.) In second appeal Mr. Lakshmayya, the learned advocate for the appellant, urges that the view taken by the lower Courts as to the nature of the right which accrued to respondents 2 and 3 by the sale to them being declared invalid has not been properly understood by both the Courts.