JUDGMENT
Ramesam, J.
1. These are revision petitions against the judgments of the District Munsif of Alatur in four small cause suits. The facts out of which the suits arose are practically admitted. The plaintiff is the karnavan of a Tavazhi known as the Kumaranchidayath house. Besides this, there were in the Tarwad two other Tavazhis, viz., the Eravamannattil house and the Puliyankalath house. In a Kama Pattar litigation of 1887, there was a compromise between all the Raman Kutty Tavazhis by which the michavaram collected from the I tenants of “Kuzhalamannom “was allotted for the expenses of the members of the first house (Ex. A). Relying on this compromise the. present suits are filed for recovering the michavaram from four of the kanom tenants in Kuzhal-mannom amsomThe tenants pleaded that the rents were paid to the karnavan of the tarwad who is D.W. 1 and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the rents.
2. The District Munsif thought that plaintiff’s claim falls within the exception to the rule “that strangers to a contract cannot enforce. “It is conceded before me by Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar, the learned Vakil who appeared. for the respondents, that neither the rule nor the exception have any application to the cases. The payment of michavaram under the contracts (which are contained in Ex. F series) was not to third persons but to the karnavan of the Tarwad in whose favour the kychits were taken. But Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar argues that Ex. A amounts to an assignment of the right to collect the michavaram. I agree with him that Ex. A ought to be construed to be an assignment of the right of the main tarwad. Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar, who appeared for the petitioners does not seriously dispute this; but he contends (1) that the assignment could be operative only in respect of the michavaram due for the remaining years of the kanoms existing in 1888 and cannot operate for the michavaram due in respect of renewed kanoms as it was dependent on the possibility of renewal.
3. I agree with this contention. The cases relied on by Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar viz., Allen v. Bryan 5 B. & C. 512 and Williams v. Hayward Ellis and Ellis 1040 do not help him as, in these cases, the assignments of rents for definite periods (being in each case the remainder of the term of the lease) were in question. I do not think that an assignment of rent can operate in respect of future possible leases that may come into existence as the result of a renewal (Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act). Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar tried to get over the difficulty by arguing that the transfer was of an interest in immoveable property. I do not think that the difficulty can be got rid of in this way. The interest transferred includes possibilities and is very indefinite.
4. In the result, the revision petitions are allowed and plaintiff’s suits are dismissed, with costs throughgout.