Judgment.- The original promissory note was execvtted in favour of Pera-reddy, the manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his two sons Sesha-reddy and Subbareddy. There was a partition suit and the promissory note was allotted to the share of Seshareddy. The amount due under the promissory note executed in favour of Seshareddy was a sum of Rs. 254-11-0. The application for scaling down the decree debt was ordered by the District Munsif. He scaled down the amount to the principal amount due under the promissory note executed in favour of Perireddy, i.e., Rs. 185-3-9 minus Rs. 60 being the payment made on 4th July, 1929, with interest at 6¼ per cent, per annum. On appeal, the appellate Judge, following the decision of Subbarao, J., reported in Hanumayya v. Nayudamma 1 , held that the debt should be traced only to Exhibit A-1, viz., the promissory note executed in favour of Seshareddy, and modified the order accordingly. The contention that is raised before me is that the decision in Hanumayya v. Nayudamma1 has really no bearing on the case and that the decision of Govindaraja-chari, J., in Govinda Nair v. Srinivasa Pattar2 applies, as there was a partition suit between Seshareddy and Subbareddy, that, under the partition decree, the promissory note was assigned to Seshareddy and that he is consequently an assignee within the meaning of the definition “creditor”. I agree with the contention of Mr. Purnayya, the learned advocate for the petitioner, and hold that there was a legal assignment in favour of Seshareddy by reason of the partition decree. Mr. Justice Govindarajachari followed the decision in an unreported case in C.R.P. No. 971 of 1942, where the partition was evidenced by a partition decree. From the facts set out in O.S. No. 54 of 1948, it is clear that there was a partition suit and must have ended in a decree. I therefore follow the decision of Govindarajachari, J., in Govinda Nair v. Srinivasa Pattar2 and hold that, by reason of the partition decree, Seshareddi should be regarded as an assignee of Perareddi and that the debt should be traced to the note in favour of Perareddi. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed and the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Ongole, set aside and the order of the District Munsif confirmed. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed and the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Ongole, set aside and the order of the District Munsif confirmed. As this point was not raised in the Courts below and as the petitioner did not invite the attention of the Courts below to the decision of Govindarajachari, J., I think it is fit and proper that no costs should be awarded to the petitioner. Each party will bear his own costs throughout. D.L.N. ------- Revision allowed.