Skip to content


Ramasamy Pillai Vs. Muthoo Chetty and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.834
AppellantRamasamy Pillai
RespondentMuthoo Chetty and ors.
Cases ReferredIn Durham Brothers v. Robertson
Excerpt:
transfer of property act (iv of 1882), section 134 - right to recover subscriptions--assignment--right to sue--actionable claim. - - as is well-known, an ordinary debt or chose-in-action before the judicature act was not assignable so as to pass the right of action;.....was a fortiori the case where the assignment was by way of security, or by way of charge only, because the assignor had a right to redeem. section 134 of the transfer of property act, shows that the mortgagee is a transferee and entitled to sue in his own name for the recovery of the original debt. even though the plaintiff as chargee may not be entitled to the whole debt assigned by way of security, still as the original creditor is a party to the suit, there can be no objection to his recovering.4. in these circumstances, we dismiss the appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. There is evidence to support the Subordinate Judge's finding that Rs. 160 had been paid to the 5th defendant by the 3rd defendant and we accept that finding.

2. The question is raised whether Exhibit A constitutes an assignment of the right to recover the subscriptions received by the 5th defendant.

3. The instrument hypothecates a debt, and on this instrument the hypothecator has an interest sufficient to give him a right to sue. In Muthu Vija Ragunatha Ramachandra Vacha Mahali Thurai v. Venkatachallam Chetti 20 M. 35, the sub-mortgagee was held entitled to sue the original mortgagor. Isri Prasad v. Rai Ganga Prasad Singh Bahadur 14 C.W.N. 165 : 3 Ind. Cas. 311 and Ardesir Bijonji Surti v. Syed Sirdar Ali Khan Bahadur 33 B. 610 : 10 Bom. L.R. 1146 : 4 Ind. Cas. 84 are authorities for the position that the holder of a charge on a debt due to his debtor by way of security for his own loan, is a transferee of an actionable claim, and entitled to recover the debt from the transferor s debtor. In Durham Brothers v. Robertson (1898) 1 Q.B. 765 : 67 L.J.Q.B. 484 : 48 L.T. 438 Chitty, L.J., observes a mere charge on a f and or debt operates as a partial equitable assignment. As is well-known, an ordinary debt or chose-in-action before the Judicature Act was not assignable so as to pass the right of action; but it was assignable so as to pass the right to sue in Equity. In a suit in Equity the assignee of a debt even when the assignment was absolute on the face of it had to make the assignor the original creditor, a party in order primarily to bind him and prevent his suing at law, and also to allow him to dispute the assignment if he thought fit. This was a fortiori the case where the assignment was by way of security, or by way of charge only, because the assignor had a right to redeem. Section 134 of the Transfer of Property Act, shows that the mortgagee is a transferee and entitled to sue in his own name for the recovery of the original debt. Even though the plaintiff as chargee may not be entitled to the whole debt assigned by way of security, still as the original creditor is a party to the suit, there can be no objection to his recovering.

4. In these circumstances, we dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //