Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Some of the co-owners of certain properties transferred their rights in those properties in favour of the plaintiff. They also purported to transfer their rights to past profits arising from those properties. Defendant 1 resisted the plaintiff's claim to the past profits on the basis that, under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act (T.P. Act), a "mere right to sue" cannot be transferred. The matter reached the court on a second appeal. The court examined whether the assignment amounted to a prohibited "mere right to sue" or a valid transfer of property and related profit claims, and ultimately allowed the second appeal with costs and restored the judgment of the trial court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the transfer in favour of the plaintiff was a "mere right to sue" (and thus void under Section 6(e), T.P. Act), or whether the transferee acquired an interest beyond a bare right to sue.
2. Whether the claim to past profits constituted an assignment of "mesne profits" (which the defendant contended would be invalid), and if so, whether that affected the validity of the assignment.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant 1's Arguments

• That under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act a "mere right to sue" cannot be transferred; thus the purported transfer of past profits was invalid if it amounted to only a mere right to sue.
• That the transfer was of "mesne profits" and therefore invalid (the defendant resisted the claim to profits on this basis).

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the plaintiff's legal arguments beyond the factual statement that co-owners transferred their rights (including purported rights to past profits) in favour of the plaintiff and that the property itself was transferred along with the right to profits.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered first whether the transfer was a "mere right to sue" under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act. It interpreted the adjective "mere" to mean a situation in which the transferee acquires no interest other than a bare right to sue. The court found that in the present case the transfer included not only the right to past profits but also the property itself; therefore the transfer was not a "mere right to sue."

Turning to the defendant's contention that the transfer was of "mesne profits" (and so invalid), the court stated it was unnecessary to decide generally whether mesne profits are assignable. The court observed that the term "mesne profits" implies wrongful possession (citing Section 2(12) Civil P.C.), but noted established authority that a co-sharer receiving profits is not in wrongful possession (citing Yerukola v. Yerukola). Accordingly, the court held that the right to profits against a co-sharer in possession is not a right to mesne profits but is instead a right to obtain and call for an account.

Finally, the court relied on precedent (Ramiah v. Rukmani Ammal and Annamalai Chettiar v. Muthukaruppan Chettiar) establishing that a right to obtain an account can be transferred. Applying those principles to the facts, the court concluded that the assignment in favour of the plaintiff did not contravene any principle of law and therefore must be recognized.

Holding and Implications

Core holding: The second appeal is allowed; the assignment in favour of the plaintiff is recognized as valid and the judgment of the trial court is restored.

Implications and direct consequences:

• The assignment of the property and the right to past profits in favour of the plaintiff was held valid and not to be a prohibited "mere right to sue."
• The court awarded costs to the plaintiff both before this court and in the court below.
• The opinion does not articulate any broader legal rule beyond the application of existing authorities; the decision resolves the dispute between the parties without announcing a new precedent.