9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the assignment of decree under a mortgage bond. 2. Rights of the assignee under the decree. 3. Nature of relief sought in the suit. 4. Finding on the validity of the mortgage bond and consideration. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the assignment of decree under a mortgage bond The appeal concerns a suit where the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to realize a decretal amount as an assignee of a decree passed in a money suit. The defendant contended that the mortgage bond, assigning the decree, was a benami document without consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit, alleging lack of consideration for the mortgage bond. However, the District Judge reversed this decision, finding the mortgage bond valid and supported by consideration. The key argument raised was whether the plaintiff, as an assignee, had acquired rights under the decree. Issue 2: Rights of the assignee under the decree The appellant argued that the plaintiff, being an assignee before the decree's existence, only had a right to sue, which is non-transferable under the Transfer of Property Act. However, the court disagreed, stating that what was transferred was the claim to a debt, falling under the definition of an 'actionable claim.' The court cited precedents to support the validity of the assignment, emphasizing that the assignment became operative upon the decree's existence for a definite amount. Issue 3: Nature of relief sought in the suit The appellant contended that the suit, seeking a declaration of assignment, was defective under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The court rejected this argument, stating that a declaration sufficed at the current stage, with the option to apply for execution of the decree later. No further consequential reliefs were necessary at that point. Issue 4: Finding on the validity of the mortgage bond and consideration The appellant challenged the lower court's finding that the mortgage bond was not a benami transaction and was supported by consideration. Despite limited evidence, the court upheld the lower court's finding, deeming it based on evidence and thus not challengeable in a second appeal. The court emphasized that innocent parties should not suffer due to any deception by the defendants. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision on the validity of the assignment and the mortgage bond. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence in determining the validity of transactions and reiterated the protection of innocent parties in such legal matters.
|
