Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Exception.- Nothing in this section applies to the transfer of a marine or fire policy of insurance or affects the provisions of section 38 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938)."

4.I would like to refer to certain excerpts from "Mulla, The Transfer of Property Act, Tenth Edition by G.C.Bharuka" thus:

"Prior to the amending Act 2 of 1900 this clause was - 'a mere right to sue/or compensation for a fraud or for harm illegally caused cannot be transferred'. The amending Act of 1900 widened the clause by omitting the words other than 'a mere right to sue', and at the same time restricted the definition of actionable claim (which formerly embraced all claims which a civil court recognised as affording grounds for relief) to debts and beneficial interests in movable property not in possession. The effect of this amendment was to make clear the distinction between property and a right to sue. As before the amendment, a right to sue for damages for breach of contract would have been an actionable claim, although such right was not properly not attachable as such. Again the former definition was inadequate, for it was limited to rights of suit for damages for tort. Such rights are undoubtedly not assignable; but there are other rights to sue arising out of contract which also cannot be assigned. In England, what were called bare or naked rights of litigation were regarded not assignable at common law as they savoured of champerty and maintenance. At equity, however, each such transaction was considered on its merits, and if it was found to be tainted with champerty or maintenance it would be struck down. However, equity would not 'emulate the hysteria of the common law in smelling out maintenance where no maintenance was'. It was held that the basis of s 6(e) is this rule of English Law. The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Sri Sara Mills Ltd, has held that:

Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act states that a mere right to sue cannot be transferred. A bare right of action might be claims to damages for breach of contract or claims to damages for tort. An assignment of a mere right to litigation is bade. An assignment of property is valid even although that property may be incapable of being received without litigation. The reason behind the rule is that a bare right of action for damages is not assignable because, the law will not recognise any transaction which may savour of maintenance of champerty. It is only when there is an interest in the subject- matter that a transaction can be saved from the imputation of maintenance. That interest must exist apart from the assignment and to that extent must be independent of it.

A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has, in similar words, indicated the true scope of the clause:

The basis of the exception being that (a) transaction savouring of maintenance or champerty should not be recognised, it follows that a transaction not open to the charge would be upheld. Therefore, soon an exception to the rule of a bare right of action being assignable came to be recognised. This exception provides that a right of action may be assigned if it be incidental or subsidiary to a conveyance of property. From the aforesaid historical background it is clear how s 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act which provides that a mere right to sue cannot be transferred is associated with the exception of the bare right of action not being assignable. It is equally clear that the provision being aimed against transactions which according to English law would amount to champerty and maintenance, whenever a transaction would be free of such charge, it would be valid.

It should also be remembered that the specific rules of English law against champerty and maintenance have not been adopted in India, and English decisions on what is a naked right of action are not always a safe guide in determining cases arising under this clause.

A right to sue is personal to the party aggrieved, and there can be no assignment of a right to sue for damages for tort or for breach of contract."

5.A mere running of the eye over the aforesaid provisions of law and the excerpts would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight the fact that mere right to sue for damages concerning defamation cannot be transferred by one person in favour of another. As such, the right is a personal one attached to the person who claims to have such right to sue for damages for defamation.