Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The sole question in this appeal is whether the power of attorney dated July 13, 1946, coupled with the endorsement on the bill dated July 19, 1948, amounts to an equitable assignment of the monies due under the bill in favour of the appellant. There are many decisions on the question as to what constitutes an equitable assignment. The law on the subject admits of no doubt. In Palmer v. Carey , Lord Wrenbury said ;

"The law as to equitable assignment, as stated... in Rodick v. Gandell is this ; The extent of the principle to be deduced is that an agreement between a debtor and a creditor that the debt owing shall be paid out of a specific fund coming to the debtor, or an order given by a debtor to his creditor upon a person owing money or holding funds belonging to the giver of the order, directing such person to pay such funds to the creditor, will create a valid equitable charge upon such fund, in other words, will operate as an equitable assignment of the debts or fund to which the order refers."

4. The question whether a document amounts to an equitable assignment or not is primarily one of construction but we may mention a few decisions which throw light on the matter. In Jagabhai Lallubhai v. Ruslamji Naserwanji the Bombay High Court held that an agreement to finance the borrower and a power of attorney of even date to receive the monies due to the borrower under certain contracts had the effect of an equitable assignment of the funds. In Seth Loonkaran Sethiya v. State Bank of Jaipur this court held that a power of attorney authorising a lender to execute a decree then passed in favour of the borrower or which ' might be passed in his favour in a pending appeal and to credit to the borrower's account the monies realised in execution of the decree amounted to an equitable assignment of the funds.

5. In the last case the court held that there was no transfer of the decree, or of the claim which was the subject-matter of the pending appeal as the borrower continued to be the owner and the lender was merely authorised to act as his agent. Nevertheless the court held that the power of attorney amounted to a binding equitable assignment. An actionable claim may be transferred under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act, Where a document does not amount to a transfer within Section 130 it may apart from and independently of the section operate as an equitable assignment of the actionable claim.

7. As a matter of fact when the debt due to Malhotra came into existence, he specifically appropriated it for payment to the appellant. On July 19, 1948, he made out a bill for the monies then due to him and endorsed on it: " Please pay to Bharat Bank Ltd., Jabalpur. " The bill with the endorsement was sent to and acknowledged by the military authorities. Counsel submitted that this document was a pay order. Now there is an essential distinction between a pay order and an assignment, A pay order is a revocable mandate. It gives the payee no interest in the fund. An assignment creates an interest in the fund and is not revocable. Read in the light of the power of attorney the endorsement on the bill dated July 19, 1948, created an interest in a specific fund and was irrevocable. There was thus a sufficient equitable assignment of a specific fund in favour of the appellant. The High Court was in error in holding that there was no equitable assignment.