PROKASH CHANDRA KISHENLAL Vs. KAYS CONSTRUCTIONS CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from a judgment and decree dismissing a suit for recovery of a debt The sum of Rs. 7651/9/- was due to the defendant No. 2 Rohmetra and Co. Ltd. from the defendant No. 1 Kays Construction Co. on account of the price of goods sold and delivered by the defendant No. 2 to the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff Prokash Chandra Kishenlal sues to recover the debt from Kays Construction Co. on the ground mat the plaintiff is the assignee of the debt. Ray, J. held that the plaintiff is not the assignee of the debt and dismissed the suit. It appears that Rohmetra and Co. Ltd. made out a bill dated September 21. 1956 showing that Kays Constructions Co. was a Debtor of Rohmetra and Co. Ltd. for the price of the goods amounting to Rs. 7651/9/-. The following endorsements appear on the bill:

(2.) Subsequently by letter dated April 18, 1957 the plaintiff demanded from Kays Construction Co. payment of the amount of the bill stating that the bill had been endorsed in favour of the plaintiff. By its reply dated May 21, 1957 Kays Construction Co. promised to settle the matter quickly. By letter dated June 13, 1957 the plaintiff's attorney demanded payment stating that Rohmetra and Co. Ltd. had assigned the bill for valuable consideration to the plaintiff and that Kays Construction Co. had duly accepted the assignment in writing. Kays Construction Co. did not reply to this letter and never disputed that there was an assignment of the debt in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) Now Kays Construction Co. was indebted to Rohmetra and Co. Ltd. for the sum of Rs. 7651/9/-. This debt was an actionable claim and in view of Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act could be assigned by the creditor by an instrument in writing signed by the Creditor. The point in issue is whether the endorsement on the bill by Rohmetra and Co. Ltd. amounts to an instrument of transfer in writing. The endorsement contains a positive direction by the creditor to pay the amount of the bill to the plaintiff. The direction is expressed to be irrevocable. The paramount intention of the creditor to be gathered from the document is that henceforth the title to the debt would pass to the plaintiff. The point is emphasised by the acceptance of the debtor endorsed on the bill. We read the acceptance of the debtor as an acknowledgment of the correctness of the amount of the bill and also as an engagement to pay the amount of the bill to the plaintiff. The debtor could not thereafter discharge the debt by making payment to the original creditor Rohmetra and Co. Ltd. The debtor could discharge the debt only by making payment to the plaintiff. Reading the endorsement made by Rohmetra and Co. Ltd. in the light of the subsequent acceptance by the debtor we are satisfied that the endorsement amounted to an assignment and/or transfer of the debt. The original creditor intended to assign the amount of the debt by the endorsement and the words of the endorsement were so understood by the debtor when the debtor accepted the bill. The point is made plainer when the subsequent correspondence is looked at. The correspondence shows that the endorsement on the bill was treated by the parties as an assignment of the debt. The original creditor intended to assign the debt and the intention is well expressed in writing. There is, therefore, a good and sufficient transfer of the actionable claim in writing as required by Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act.