TAKHATMAL MOTH RAJ Vs. BHARAT NIDHI LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a decision of the first Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, declaring that the respondent No. 1, Bharat Nidhi Limited, is the owner of a bill dated 19th July 1948 under which a sum of Rs. 49,633-8-7 was due from the eastern Command military authorities.

(2.) THE material facts are that in 1946 the respondent No. 2, Malhotra, entered into certain contracts with military authorities and other Government-departments for work or labour. The Bharat Bank Ltd. , the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 1, Bharat Nidhi Ltd, agreed to advance moneys from time to time to Malhotra for the execution of the contracts undertaken by him. On I3th July 1946 Malhotra executed a power or attorney in favour of the Bank authorising it by Clause (1) thereof

(3.) THE sole question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the power of attorney executed by Malhotra and the endorsement made by him on the bill referred to above amounted to an assignment of the debt due to Malhotra from the military authorities within the meaning of Section 130 of the Transfer of property Act. Under that provision the assignment of a close in action must be made by writing signed by the transferor or his duly authorised agent. Section 130 does not prescribe that the assignment should be in a particular form or that a particular language should be used to effect an assignment. What is essential is that the words used in the instrument of transfer must clearly indicate the intention of the transferor to transfer the claim due to him to the transferee. As was observed by lord Macnaghten in William Brandt's Sons and Co. v. Dunlop Rubber Co. , 1905 AC 454