AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
King, J.—As I have already held in C.M.A. No. 207 of 1939 the definition of the word ''creditor'' in the Act is conclusive in showing that a
renewal of a debt to the assignee of the original creditor is a renewal to the ''same'' creditor within the meaning of the explanation to Section 8 of
the Madras Act IV of 1938. I am now, however, asked to hold that the definition of the word ''creditor'' in Section 3(v) though it may extend to a
first assignee cannot be extended to any subsequent assignee. The number of links in the chain of succession makes, in my opinion, no difference.
The point is simply this that the ultimate assignee has, in respect of the debt, succeeded to the legal right of the original creditor in exactly the same
sense as the first assignee has. The appeal is dismissed with costs.