MULRAJ KHATAU Vs. VISHWANATH PRABHURAM VAIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in this appeal is as to whether the appellant or the respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs. 29,426-14-0 now standing in Court to abide the result of the action. It represents the net proceeds of a policy of insurance on the life of Dwarkadas Dharamsey, who died on 28th August 1909.

(2.) THE appellant bases his claim on an assignment in writing under the hand of Dwarkadas Dharamsey, dated the 13th of August 1909. It is in form an absolute assignment, and was, according to the evidence, given under pressure from the appellant to whom Dwarkadas Dharamsey was then indebted in a much larger sum. The validity of the assignment is, therefore, established. It may well be that although absolute in form, it was intended to be only by way of security so as to be subject to a right of redemption, but this does not affect the rights of the parties under the circumstances of the present case.

(3.) THE decision of the matter in issue turns entirely on the interpretation of Section 130, Sub-section 1, of the Transfer of Property Act, 1900. It is as follows: The transfer of an actionable claim shall be effected only by the execution of an instrument in writing signed by the transferor or his duly authorised agent, and shall be complete and effectual upon the execution of such instrument, and thereupon all the rights and remedies of the transferor, whether by way of damages or otherwise, shall vest in the transferee, whether such notice of the transfer as is hereinafter provided be given or not: Provided that every dealing with the debt or other actionable claim by the debtor or other person, from or against whom the transferor would, but for such instrument of transfer as aforesaid, have been entitled to recover or enforce such debt or other actionable claim, shall (save where the debtor or other person is a party to the transfer, or has received express notice thereof as hereinafter provided) be valid as against such transfer.