CHIMANLAL HARGOVINDDAS Vs. GULAMNABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [Here not only is the property transferred but the rights under the award are transferred, What will be the effect of that ?]

(2.) The right under the award is not the right under a decree. The right under an award does not open until a decree is passed. Award is an intermediate stage which is short of a decree. Further the document of transfer in this case does not purport to convey the future rights that may be obtained under the decree. In that respect the document is silent. It does not purport to transfer the decree which may be passed in future in favour of the vendor. A decree is something different from an award and what was transferred was what the vendor had already got, that is a mere award, and not the decree, which he obtained after the transfer.

(3.) The right under an award is similar to a right under a bond, and until a final adjudication is made on the rights under the bond, there can be no transfer of a decree. Similarly there can be no transfer of a decree, until one is passed on the award. The real point at issue is as to the method by which rights are to be enforced and not whether a right is proved. Even assuming that there is an equitable assignment, the transferee is not entitled to execute a decree by becoming the holder of the decree under an equitable assignment. For instance, suppose there is an oral sale of the decree and the price is also paid. That does not entitle the transferee to execute that decree until an assignment is actually effected in favour of the assignee.