RAM GOVIND PANDEY Vs. BRIJ RATAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this case is particularly one of the interpretation to be put on the statement made by defendant 1 through his counsel that the sum of Rs. 1,000, which stood to his credit in the criminal Court, should be sent for and paid to the plaintiff in satisfaction of his decree. The order passed by the Court was that the sum of Rs. 451, which represented the decretal amount, should be requisitioned from the Court of the Magistrate. If the proper intention is that the judgment-debtor had assigned this sum of money to the decree-holder, then it would at once become the decree-holder's property and would not be capable of being attached by any other creditor. There are two difficulties which must be stated. The first is that if it were an assignment of that amount, then the Court should have at once ordered that the decree was adjusted and was paid up in full, and should have struck off the execution case in full satisfaction, because an assignment of a debt ought to amount to payment. The Court, however, did not proceed in that way, but still proceeded to attach this amount as if it were executing a decree. The second difficulty is that the sum of Rs. 1,000 had been awarded by the Joint Magistrate as compensation to defendant 2, out of the fine paid by the accused in a defamation case. It may be doubtful whether the money could be the property of the defendant before it was actually paid to him by the Government Treasury. If either the amount had not become the property of the defendant or if it had not been validly assigned so as to pass the property to the decree-holder, it could be attached by the second creditor before the amount was realized by the execution Court. And even if the amount be considered as a part of the assets realized, both the decree-holders would be entitled to a rateable distribution.

(2.) That an oral assignment of a debt is legally valid cannot be doubted. The question really was one of the interpretation of the statement made by the defendant's counsel. Both the Courts below interpreted it in favour of the defendant decree-holder and held that the money had become the property of the defendant decree-holder before it was attached by the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. A learned Judge of this Court has taken a different view, and held that Section 73, Civil P.C., is applicable as the assets were realized by the execution Court after both the decree-holders had applied for execution, and that accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to rateable distribution. It does not appear to have been argued before the learned Judge that the statement made by the defendant's counsel had amounted to an assignment of the debt. He has accordingly expressed no opinion on this point. As my learned brother interprets the statement as amounting to an assignment of Rs. 451, and this view is in affirmance of the views taken by the Courts below, I feel that I should not differ from that view. No doubt there are difficulties in the way of holding that there was an out and out assignment, but at the same time the intention of the judgment- debtor was to give the sum to the decree-holder. I, therefore, concur in the order proposed. Niamatullah, J.

(3.) This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decree passed by a learned Judge of this Court, reversing the concurrent decree of the first two Courts in a suit in which the plaintiff-respondents claimed a declaration of their right to a sum of Rs. 451 received by the City Munsif of Benares in suit No. 513 of 1929 from the Joint Magistrate of Benares. The facts which gave rise to the litigation are not in dispute. A sum of Rs. 1,000 was awarded by the Joint Magistrate of Benares to defendant 2 out of the fine to be paid by the accused in a defamation case. Defendant 2 was the complainant and the sum was awarded to him-as compensation. The fine was paid and consequently defendant 2 had a right to recover Rs. 1,000 thereout in terms of the order of the Magistrate. Before defendant 2 could recover that amount, one of his creditors, namely defendant 1, instituted a suit, in the Court of the City Munsif, Benares, claiming, inter alia, a sum of Rs. 451 and took out attachment before judgment under the Court's order dated 11 November 1929 and had the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,000 attached. The case was fixed for 18 December 19291 when the defendant of that case (present defendant 2) stated through his counsel, admitting the claim of the then plaintiff to Rs. 451, that out of Rs. 1,000, which stood to his credit in the criminal Court; and which had been attached before judgment Rs. 451 be sent for and given to the plaintiff in satisfaction of the decree which was or was to be passed that day. The order of the Court passed on this statement, was that a decree under Order 12, Rule 6, Civil P.C., be passed and the sum of Rs. 451 attached before judgment be requisitioned from the Court of the Joint Magistrate. The statement referred to above gives an impression that it was made after the Court had passed a decree under Order 12, Rulse 6, that is to say a decree in respect of that part of the claim which was admitted, the plaintiff's suit to continue for the rest of his claim. The original record of that case is not before me but the munsif who apparently had the record before him has noted in his judgment in this case that the Count recorded an order on 18 December 1929 under Order 12, Rule 6, decreeing the claim for Rs. 451 and requisitioning Rs. 451 from the Joint Magistrate's Court for payment to Bam Govind.