CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR Vs. SAMI AIYAR ALIAS ARUNACHALAM AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals raise the question of the validity of the assignment of a decree obtained by one Swami Iyer in O.S. No. 12 of 1899 on the file of the Subordinate Court of Kumbakonam to one Annamalai Chetti through whom the appellant claims as against other "creditors of Swami Iyer who are the respondents. The facts are that a sum of over Rs. 14,000 was held in deposit by the Court to the credit of Swami Iyer as decree-holder in O.S. No. 12 of 1899. Swami Iyer was himself indebted to various persons, and some of them obtained decrees against him for the sums due. Annamalai Chetti was one of the decree-holders (O.S. No. 93 of 1899) and he obtained Exhibit A, dated the 28 March 1900, from Swami Iyer, whereby the latter purported to assign to him his rights under the decree in O.S. No. 12 of 1899. The consideration for the assignment recited in the deed, viz., Rs. 15,000, was stated to consist of (1) Rs. 4,390 principal, interests and costs due to Annamalai's firm under the decree already referred to (O.S. No. 93 of 1899), (2) Rs. 1,650 or so due to Lakshmana Chetty in suit No. 65 of 1899, (3) Rs. 1,185 due to Srinjvasaiyar under, promissory note C, (4) a cash payment of Rs. 7,775 before the Sub-Registrar.

(2.) Though the last mentioned sum was paid before the Sub-Registrar, admittedly Annamalai took back the amount, and on the 3 April 1900 he and Swami Iyer entered into an arrangement which purports to be set cut in Exhibit D. According to it Rs. 610 was paid to Swami Iyer himself, Rs. 270 to one C. Krishnaswami Iyer, Rs. 57 into Court, Rs. 1,000 to the present appellant, Chidambaram Chetti, and Rs. 5,838 to a dancing girl named Balamani.

(3.) There is no doubt that the sums of Rs. 4,390 and Rs. 1,650, stated to have "been paid to the decree-holder were really due, and they entered satisfaction for the same. The, Subordinate Judge in effect found that the payment to C. Krishnaswami Iyer, was also due, and we think that the weight of evidence is in favour of the view that the sum of Rs. 1,185 was due, and was paid, to K. Srinivasaier.