Skip to content


Vencatachellam Iyer Vs. K.V. Subramanya Iyer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in14Ind.Cas.144
AppellantVencatachellam Iyer
RespondentK.V. Subramanya Iyer
Excerpt:
transfer of properly act (iv of 1882), section 130 - actionable claim, assignment of--attachment of amount, subject of assignment, after assignment, effect of--notice of assignment, whether necessary--security amount. - .....the amount received by him from court. the defendant contends that he had no notice of plaintiff's right as assignee when he received the amount and that plaintiff has, therefore, no right to recover from him. we are of opinion that the contention is not sound. the defendant's rights are not higher than those of a purchaser of property at court-auction. he obtained only such rights as narayanasawmi himself had at the time of the attachment. according to section 130 of the transfer of property act, the plaintiff's right under the assignment was complete against narayanasawmi on the date when the assignment took place. notice to the debtor was not necessary for its completion. no doubt, under the section any dealing by the debtor without knowledge of the transfer would be valid as against.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff is the assignee for value from one Narayanasawmi Iyer of the latter's right to a sum of money deposited by him with certain third persons as security for the proper peformance of some office held by him under them. Sub-sequent to the assignment to plaintiff, the defendant attached Rs. 145 out of the security amount for a decree obtained by him against Narayanasami. The amount attached was paid into Court by the persons who held it as security and was withdrawn by the defendant The plaintiff's suit is for the recovery from the defendant of the amount received by him from Court. The defendant contends that he had no notice of plaintiff's right as assignee when he received the amount and that plaintiff has, therefore, no right to recover from him. We are of opinion that the contention is not sound. The defendant's rights are not higher than those of a purchaser of property at Court-auction. He obtained only such rights as Narayanasawmi himself had at the time of the attachment. According to Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff's right under the assignment was complete against Narayanasawmi on the date when the assignment took place. Notice to the debtor was not necessary for its completion. No doubt, under the section any dealing by the debtor without knowledge of the transfer would be valid as against the assignee. Here the debtor did not enter into any dealing with a third party and the plaintiff is not claiming any right against the debtor. The defendant stands merely in the shoes of Narayanasawmi, the debtors having discharged themselves by payment into Court. It is urged that Section 130 is not applicable to the case as the debt was not strictly within the definition of an actionable claim in Section 130 inasmuch as at the time of the assignment, there was no debt due to Narayanasawmi as he was still holding the office in connection with which the security-money was deposited. Assuming this statement to be correct, we have no doubt that the principle of the section must be applied. A dictum in an English case is cited for the petitioner, but this case must, in our opinion, be decided according to the law as laid down in Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petition is dismissed with costs.


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