AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We do not think that the view taken by the District Judge is correct. The 1st appellant was one of the joint decree-holders and claimed to have
an assignment from some of the others and alleged that the rest refused to join him and he, therefore, made them defendants. It is difficult to see
how he could have proceeded; with a view to obtain the fruits of his decree otherwise than in the way he did. The fact that he failed to prove the
validity of the assignment, does not, in our opinion, show, that his application was not in accordance with law.
Sreepada Brahmayya Pantulu v. Parasuramayya 12 M.L.J. 348.
We must, therefore, set aside the order of the learned District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the lower
appellate Court.