Transfer of Property Act – Notes

transfer-of-property-act

This case is based on Section 135 and section 13 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section thirteen underneath Transfer of property Act 1882 – Transfer for good thing about the unknown person. Where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created for the benefit of a person not in existence at the date of the transfer, subject to a prior interest created by the same transfer, the interest created for the benefit of such person shall not take effect, unless it extends to the whole of the remaining interest of the transferor in the property.



Illustration
A transfer’s property of which he is the owner to B in trust for A and his intended wife successively for their lives, and, after the death of the survivor, for the eldest son of the meant wedding for all times, and after his death for A’s second son.
The interest so created for the benefit of the eldest son does not take effect because it does not extend to the whole of A’s remaining interest in the property.
Section 135A. Under Transfer of property Act 1882,- Assignment of rights under policy of marine insurance repealed by the Marine Insurance Act, 1963 (11 of 1963), w.e.f. 1-8-1963. The plaintiff, has Sri Sarda Mills Limited instituted the Suit against the Union of India as representing the central and southern Railway for damage 200 bills of FB cotton consigned through their agent for from Nagpur to Podhanur under a railway receipt issued by the central railway. The goods have to pass through several stations along the two Railways, Homely the central and the southern, before it’s arrived at Podhanur. When the goods arrived at podhanur it was found that 87 bills out of the hundred were front and charge that 13 bills were lost and shot in weight. When the plaintiff appealed for open delivery the railway authority at Podhanur got the damage and surveyed issue certificate of damage and shortage.The plaintiff claim damage to the railway administration. But the chief commercial superintendent southern and Railway informed the plaintiff that the consignment was involved in a fire accident at Sirpur Kagaznagar on the central railway, that the cause of the fire was unknown and that the Railways but not liable for damage caused to the goods there was no negligence or misconduct the planet Apes, therefore, instituted the suit for damages alleging that the Railway Administration was negligent .



The defendant field W.S. and contested the suit. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was, entitled to institute the suit as it has ensured the goods with the Indian Globe Insurance Co. And had received the total loss from the company, that the damage to the goods was caused by fire, which was beyond the control of the railway and therefore, the defendants were not liable for damages. The trial court found that the fire which caused the damages to the goods was not due to any cause beyond the control of the railway and that the damage was due to their negligence. The trial court dismissed the suit. It held that the suit was not maintainable as the Indian Globe Insurance Co. With whom the goods were insured under a marine insurance policy, had paid the plaintiff an amount of total loss.
The plaintiff appealed to the high court of Madras. The court reversed the decree holding that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit and that, damages to the goods was on account of the negligence of the railways.
The defendants preferred this appeal in the Supreme Court.
In this appeal two submissions were made on behalf of the appellants:

  1. That there was no proof to point out that the Railway Administration was negligent in addressing the products, and
  2. That the suit was not maintainable. Counsel for the appellate contended that by reason of the assignment to the Insurance company of all rights against the Railways Administration the respondent did not have any cause of action against the Railway Administration. He relied upon rulings also.
    Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act speaks of transfer of actionable claims.



Actionable claims beneath the Indian law embody claims recognized by the Court either on unsecured debts or because of the helpful interest in movable property not in possession. Debt is an obligation to pay a liquidated or bound add of cash.

A beneficial interest in the movable property will include a right to recover insurance money or a partner right to sue for an account of a dissolved partnership or a deferral debt or a right to recover the insurance money or the right to claim the benefits of a contract not coupled with any liability.
Section 6 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act states that a mere right sue cannot be transferred. A bare right of action might be claiming to damages for breach of contract or claims for damages for tort. An assignment of a mere right of proceedings is unhealthy. An assignment of property is valid even though that property is also incapable of being recovered while not proceedings.

The reason behind the rule is that a blank right of action for damages isn’t conveyable as a result of the law won’t acknowledge any dealing which can favor the maintenance of champerty. It is only there’s some interest within the subject material that dealing is often saved from the imputation of maintenance. That interest must exist apart from the assignment and to that extent must be independent of it. A cause in action for breach of contract was not assignable in equity. A cause in action in tort was assigned neither in law nor in equity. A blank right of action isn’t conveyable, once but, the correct of action is one amongst the incidents hooked up to the property or contract appointed it’ll not be treated as a bare right of action.

In this case, the insurance company has not used to enforce any assignment. The document which is described as the letter of subrogation also uses the words of assigning rights against the Railways Administration. It is not necessary to Express any opinions whether the letter of subrogation amounted to an assignment in the present case because the insurance, company has not sought to enforce any assignment. In the present case, the insurance company and the mill proceeded on the basis that the insurance company was only subrogated to the rights of the assured. The letter of subrogation contains intrinsic evidence that the respondent would give the insurance company facilities for enforcing rights. The insurance underwriter has chosen to permit the mill to sue.



The cause of action of the mill against the Railways Administration did not perish on giving the letter of subrogation. Therefore, the respondent has a cause of action. This judgment was given by the majority. However, learned Mathew.J was of the opinion that the mill has no right to sue.

Decision- Appeal is dismissed with costs.

  1. Subrogation does not confer an independent right on underwriters to maintain in their own name and without reference to the persons assured an action for damages to the things assured.
  2. The cause of action of the policyholder against the Railways Administration did not perish on giving the letter of subrogation.
  3. Section 6 (e ) of the Transfer of Property Act states that a mere right to sue cannot be transferred. Section 6 Under Transfer of Property Act 1882,- What may be transferred

Property of any kind is additionally transferred, except as otherwise provided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force.



  1. The possibility of associate degree heir-apparent succeeding to associate degree estate, the chance of a relation obtaining a legacy on the death of a kinsman, or any other mere possibility of
    alike nature, cannot be transferred.
  2. A mere right of re-entry for breach of a condition subsequent cannot be transferred to anyone except the owner of the property affected thereby.
  3. Associate degree easement can’t be transferred except the dominant heritage.
  4. Associate degree interest in property restricted in its enjoyment to the owner in person can’t be transferred by him.
  5. A right to future maintenance, in whatsoever manner arising, secured or determined, cannot be transferred.
  6. A mere right to sue can’t be transferred.
  7. A bullet can’t be transferred, nor can the salary of a public officer, whether before or after it has become payable.
  8. Stipends allowed to military, naval, air-force and civil pensioners of the govt and political pensions can not be transferred.
  9. No transfer are often created (1) in so far because it is hostile the character of the interest affected thereby, or (2) for an unlawful object or consideration within the meaning of section twenty-three of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), or (3) to a person legally disqualified to be transferee. (i) Nothing during this section shall be deemed to authorize a tenant having associate degree unalienable right of occupancy, the farmer of associate degree estate in respect of that default has been made in paying revenue, or the lessee of an estate, under the management of a Court of Wards, to assign his interest as such tenant, farmer or lessee.

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of