Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Mr. Narayanamurthi who appeared for some of the defendants has called our attention to certain Indian cases. I will only refer to Bansidhar v. Sant Lal (1888) I.L.R., 10 All., 133. This was a case of hypothecation of indigo produce when it should come into existence. It was held that the hypothecation was good.

15. A further objection which was taken by Mr. Prakasam was that the words of the instrument were not sufficiently specific to constitute a charge. Some authorities have been cited in reference to the question. There is a case-Ramsidh Pande v. Balgobind (1887) I.L.R., 9 All., 158-in which the words of the instrument were of a general character "Whatever property, etc., belonging to me." It was held that the bond created a charge on the properties in the circumstances of the case. This decision was doubted in a later Allahabad case and I do not express any opinion about it. It seems to me that the words of the instrument in the present case are of a much more precise and specific character. We have a reference to specific funds out of which the claims of the creditor are to be satisfied They are to be satisfied out of cheques or monies received for work done by the defendants which was paid for in the first instance by the defendants. The rule is thus stated in Fisher on Mortgages, sixth edition, page 126, paragraph 230: "If, however, there is a sufficient indication that the supposed assignee is to have the benefit of the fund or chose in action in question, in addition to relying on the credit of the assignor, or, as it is sometimes put, is to be paid 'out of the fund' as distinguished from 'when the assignor gets the fund,' a valid equitable assignment is created, provided that the transaction is for value. The intention must be that the property shall pass." Applying that test hare, is it "when" or "out of." It seems to me that Exhibit XI may be fairly construed as being an instrument where a man gives a charge to be met out of a specific fund.

16. Mr. Prakasam referred us to a passage in Ryall v. Rowles Ves. Sen., 348 S.C., 1 White and Tudor's L.C., 8th Edn., at p. 117: "A promise to pay money when the debtor receives a debt due to him from a third person does not constitute an equitable assignment, so as to charge the debt in the hands of such third person." In the notes, Field v. Megaw (1869) L.R., 4 C.P., 660, is cited. The promise in that case was a promise to pay "when," not a promise to pay "out of."

17. Then as to the other documents which wore relied on as creating a charge. Exhibit XIV is in these terms: "I promise to pay the amounts you paid to my agent N. Subba Rao Garu for interest up to 14th October 1906 amounting to Rs. 118-8-10 and Rs. 15 of to-day's total one hundred and thirty-three from the commissions due to me on your works from coming cheques."