Kocherla Seetamma vs Pillala Venkatramayya and Others

We entirely agree with the findings of the learned District Judge and the reasons he has given for them. The appellant''s case as to the date of

Ankamma''s death is entirely unsupported by any credible evidence. We dismiss the appeal with costs.

The question argued in the Memorandum of objections is whether a claim for past mesne profits could be validly transferred having regard to

Clause (e) of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act. We are of opinion that the Lower Court is right in holding that it cannot be; Shy am Ghand

Kundoo v. The Land Mortgage Bank of India ILR (1883) C. 695 and Pragi Lal v. Fatechand ILR (1882) A, 207 support this view. The recent

decision of this court in Pusuluri Varahaswami Vs. Mantena Ramachandra Raju, after the amendment of Clause (e) of Section 6 of the Transfer of

Property Act is to the same effect. See also Abu Mahomed v. S.C. Chunder ILR (1908) C. 345 The respondents refer to King v. Victoria

Insurance Company (1896) A.C. 250 But the case is not in point, as the right of an insurer under the contract of insurance to be subrogated to the

rights and remedies of the assured cannot be regarded as arising merely from the transfer of a right of action. We are not prepared to agree that the

view laid down in Warren''s ""Choses in Action"" p. 161, that a right to recover damages for an assault is assignable correctly expresses the law

applicable in this country assuming that it does the law applicable in England. The plaintiffs are entitled to interest on the profits of each year at 6 p.

c. per annum. With this slight modification we dismiss the Memorandum of objections with costs.