PALERU PAPAIAH (DIED) Vs. CHEBROLU RAMAPUNNIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT seems to me quite clear that when, by the tripartite arrangement known as "havala", a debt due by A to B is cancelled and for it is substituted a debt due by A to C, there being also a discharge of B's separate obligation to C, this cannot enable A to claim under Section 8 of Act IV of 1938, that his debt to C is a renewal of the debt to B. C is not the same creditor as B nor is he an assign of B in respect of A's original debt. The revision petitions are dismissed with costs--one set in C.R.P. No. 439 of 1939.