9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Provident Fund money is an actionable claim. 2. The nature of the right acquired by the plaintiff through the assignment of the Provident Fund money. 3. Whether the present suit is maintainable. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the Provident Fund money is an actionable claim: The court examined the definition of an actionable claim under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act (T.P. Act). An actionable claim is defined as a claim to any debt other than a debt secured by a mortgage of immovable property or by the hypothecation or pledge of movable property, or to any beneficial interest in movable property not in the possession either actually or constructively of the claimant. The court referenced Bancharam Majumdar v. Adyanath Bhattacharjee, where a debt is described as a sum of money payable in the future by reason of a present obligation. The court concluded that the Provident Fund money is a debt or an actionable claim because it represents a right to receive a sum of money under the rules of the Provident Fund, akin to a balance in a bank account. 2. The nature of the right acquired by the plaintiff through the assignment of the Provident Fund money: The court analyzed the assignment of the Provident Fund money as a collateral security under Section 130 of the T.P. Act, which allows for the transfer of actionable claims. The transfer includes not only absolute assignments but also conditional ones. By virtue of the assignment, the plaintiff acquired all the rights of defendant 2 in the Provident Fund money. However, the plaintiff, being a legal practitioner, is precluded from enforcing his right in court under Section 136 of the T.P. Act. The court cited various cases, including Mulraj Khatan v. Viswanath Prabhuram Vaidya, which support the view that an assignee of an actionable claim stands in the shoes of the assignor and can sue for recovery of the debt. 3. Whether the present suit is maintainable: The court considered Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), which states that an obligation and a collateral security for its performance constitute one cause of action. The court noted that the plaintiff had elected to sue defendant 2 on the basis of a hand-note and obtained a decree for the whole amount due, thereby abandoning his rights under the deed of assignment. The court emphasized that the plaintiff, being a legal practitioner, could not enforce his right under Section 136 of the T.P. Act. The court concluded that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable because he had already obtained a decree on the hand-note and had abandoned his rights under the assignment. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside, and the suit was dismissed with costs throughout.
|
