THIMMA REDDI Vs. SUBBA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 3rd and 4th plaintiffs (decree-holders ) assignee is the appellant before us. The material facts may be shortly stated thus. The 1st and the 2nd plaintiffs were partners of the joint decree holders with the appellant s assignors, namely, the plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4. The decree was passed in favour of all the four plaintiffs in 1908 for a certain sum of money. There was an adjustment of the decree amount between the defendants and the plaintiffs at Rs 435 and that sum was paid up to all the four plaintiffs in 1909 by the defendants through one Muthia Thevan, The decree was thus really satisfied but a certificate of satisfaction was not filed by all or any of the four plaintiffs till December 1911 and hence the executing Court could not recognize the satisfaction till then.,

(2.) In 1910 the four plaintiffs dissolved the partnership and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 1 respectively executed release deeds in February 1910 and February 1911 in respect of the partnership assets and liabilities. As all the four partners knew well that the decree debt due by the defendants had been really satisfied in 1909, the plaintiffs Nos, 1 and 2 never could have thought when they executed their release deeds that the partnership owned any interest in the decree and could not have intended to transfer any rights under the decree to the plaintiffs Nos, 3 and 4. (The release deeds A and B have not been translated and printed.) Plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 treating the decree, however, as still alive and treating themselves as the sole owners of the decree, fraudulently assigned the decree to the appellant (execution petitioner) for no consideration in May 1911. The appellant first applied for execution in July 1911 (just within 3 years of the decree). The plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 got notice and filed counter-petitions in December 1911, which contained certificates of satisfaction of the decree by payment of R3. 485 in 1909. The appellant did not prosecute that petition and had it dismissed in 1912. Then he filed the present execution petition in November 1913 for a warrant of arrest against the 1st defendant for recovery of the decree amount.

(3.) The lower Appellate Court (confirming the decision of the District Munsif) refused to recognize the appellant as transferee of the decree and dismissed the execution application, on the above facts and on the view that the certificates of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were legally valid certificates of satisfaction which discharged the decree