AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Two points are taken in this second appeal. The first is that Exhibit VIII is not an assignment within Section 133 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Rama Iyen v. Venkatachellam Patter 30 M.K 75 : 1 M.L.T. 329 : 16 M.L.J. 554 was referred to by the appellant. In our opinion, that case is
more in favour of the validity of a document executed in the circumstances of this case. There is no force in this contention. It is then urged that the
District Judge has not considered Exhibit B, an affidavit made by the assignor. The District Munsif has considered it and is of opinion that it cannot
be used against the 2nd defendant in this case. We have also considered it and, after giving due weight to it, find no reason to disturb the District
Judge''s finding that the transactions evidenced by Exhibit VIII and Exhibit II and the endorsement on Exhibit A are genuine and that there is,
therefore, a discharge prior to the attachment.
The second appeal is dismissed with costs.