SHEONANDAN LAL Vs. ZAINAL ABDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,000 said to be a portion of the unpaid purchase money of Mouzah Dam Duma and therefore charged upon that village. This village was sold in 1902 by Ashruf Hossain and Abdul Huq to the appellant. Out of the purchase money a sum of Rs. 1,000 was kept by the appellant on the understanding that he should in September 1903 pay it to one Mahomed Kazim in payment of a mortgage by conditional sale of two villages which may briefly be described as Galib and Katsa.

(2.) Abdul Huq died and this suit was brought by Ashraf Hossain as one of Abdul Huq s heirs and by the other heirs of Abdul Huq. The facts are not very definitely found by the Courts below, but, if I understand their judgments right, they think that Ashraf Hossain in 190i gave the right of redeeming Galib and Katsa to his daughter Bibi Azizan, in order that she might obtain those villages by paying the mortgage money viz. Rs. 1,000 from her own pocket;, and that in 1905 he gave to Abdul Huq, Ms son, his interest in the right of recovering the sum of Rs. 1,000 which was in deposit with the appellant. The appellant had not paid the money although it was two years after the due date, and perhaps there seemed little likelihood of his doing so. In 1906 Abdul Huq gave Die appellant notice to pay this money, but as he did not do so, the present suit was instituted. After the suit was instituted the appellant brought the equity of redemption of Galib and Katsa from Azizan and asserts that he gave her the sum of Rs. 1,000 to be paid by her to the original mortgagee. This allegation was supported by Azizan. The Court below does not believe that this sum was ever paid and has given the plaintiffs a decree.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant it is first contended that the suit cannot be maintained by the present plaintiffs on the ground that the charge mentioned in Section 55 sub-section (4) Clause (b) of the Transfer of Property. Act, 1882, is a personal right of the seller himself, and cannot be transferred to an assignee. There is, however, no real authority in support of this view. The cases cited, Hari Ram v. Danaput Singh (1882) I. L. R. 9 Calc. 167. and Mod Lal v. Bhagwan Das (1909) I. L. R. 31 All. 443. are quite different and do not support the present contention. The debt itself could certainly be transferred, and I see no reason why the security for the debt should not also be transferred with it.