THAKURDAS Vs. VISHNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was the owner of a decree assigned to him by defendants 2 and 3. The lower appellate Court has held that the factum of assignment has been proved. He states that the witnesses for the plaintiff tell a consistent and a probable story and he is unable to rely solely on the evidence of Champsi (D. W. 2) and his account. The plaintiff obtained a declaration in the first Court, and the first appeal was dismissed.

(2.) IT is strongly urged before me that the finding of fact is incorrect. Reliance is placed on the fact that the plaintiff did not get his name substituted in the suit which resulted in a decree in favour of defendants 2 and 3. But this fact has been fully considered in para. 14 of the first Court's judgment. It is also stated that the Bombay Courts have come to a different conclusion, when deciding the suit instituted by defendants 2 and 3. I do not see in, what manner the opinion of the Bombay Courts, based an the evidence produced before them, is relevant. There is no reason, then, for interference with the finding of fact.

(3.) SIMILARLY , in Palaniappa v. Lakshmanan [1893] 16 Mad. 429 it was held that a valid charge might be created on a sum of money due under a decree, although at the time of the creation no decree was in. existence. The legal ground urged by the appellant therefore fails. The appeal is dismissed with costs on the appellant.