1. It is clear that under Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Exhibit A is not a negotiable instrument. It is urged, however, that the endorsement on Exhibit A 'The amount due under this pro-note must be paid to Kolaththooran Patter's son Venkatachelam Patter of Thathamangalain Patinharay Gramam, 7th Chingam 1075' is an assignment. (Vide Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act.) This question has not been decided by the Subordinate Judge.
We accordingly direct the present Subordinate Judge to decide the following issue on the evidence on record:
Does the endorsement on Exhibit A amount to a valid assignment in favour of the plaintiff?
The finding should be submitted within three months from, this date when seven days will be allowed for filing objections.
In compliance with the above the Subordinate Judge submitted the following
FINDING : - The issue that I am directed to try in the above case is:
Does the 'endorsement on Exhibit A amount to a valid assignment in favour of the plaintiff.
2. Now an assignment is properly a transfer of the 'whole of a 'particular estate, the operative verbs being assign, transfer and set 'over: but other words indicating an intention to make a complete 'transfer will amount to an assignment.' (Vide Wharton's Law Lexison). Assignment is also used to denote the transfer of a debt or any beneficial interest in moveable property and no particular, words are necessary to effect such a transfer, if the intention to transfer is clear from the language used. Now the endorsement in question does not indeed contain any words whatsoever to show that the sum due under A has been assigned to the plaintiff. It is on the face of it an order for payment of that sum to the plaintiff and seems to be the result rather of an assignment than an assignment itself; but as the fund which is due to the person ordering and which is ordered to be paid to the plaintiff is very clearly indicated by the following words, viz. : - 'the amount due under this pro-note' the order, I think, operates as an equitable assignment vide Row v. Dawson I Ves. 331 and ii White and Tuder, page 796, sixth edition in this case Gibson borrowed money of defendants and gave them a draft upon a fund due to him out of the Exchequer which was deposited with the officer from whom the fund was payable, and it was held that the draft was an assignment to defendants.
3. The endorsement in question is an instrument in writing signed by the transferor. It was indeed not on a stamp; but the necessary stamp duty and penalty have already been levied, and so it is not open to any objection. I find that the endorsement in question is a valid equitable assignment in favour of the plaintiff.