1957 (2) TMI 80 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Enforceability of the Plaintiff's claim under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act.
2. Validity of the transfer of the right to recover profits along with the transfer of the land.
3. Determination of the correct amount of compensation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Enforceability of the Plaintiff's Claim under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act:
The primary issue in this case is whether the right claimed by the Plaintiff is enforceable or falls within the mischief of Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, which states that a mere right to sue cannot be transferred. The Plaintiff purchased the property from Sundaramma, who had a decree against the Defendants. The Defendants had agreed to pay yearly rent in the form of 4,000 coconuts but failed to do so. The Plaintiff sought to recover these past profits. The lower appellate court held that the Plaintiff did not obtain a valid transfer of such profits from Sundaramma, as it was a mere right to sue, thus dismissing the Plaintiff's suit.

2. Validity of the Transfer of the Right to Recover Profits Along with the Transfer of the Land:
The Full Bench was convened to resolve the conflicting judicial opinions on whether the transfer of the right to recover profits along with the land is hit by Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act. Historical cases were reviewed, including ILR 38 Mad 308, AIR 1916 Mad 473 (1), which held that a transfer of past mesne profits was invalid under Section 6(e). However, other cases like ILR 44 Mad 539, AIR 1921 Mad 56, and 1920 -1 KB 399 (I) argued that if the right to recover profits is incidental or subsidiary to a conveyance of property, it is not a mere right to sue and thus valid. The Full Bench concluded that Section 6(e) should not extend beyond prohibiting transactions that amount to champerty and maintenance, and thus, the transfer of the right to recover profits along with the land is valid.

3. Determination of the Correct Amount of Compensation:
The trial court had decreed Rs. 375 with proportionate costs and future interest, while the lower appellate court dismissed the entire suit. The Full Bench restored the trial court's decree, holding that the Plaintiff's claim to 4,000 coconuts was not proven, and Rs. 375 was a fair compensation. The findings of fact by the lower courts were upheld, and the decree of the trial court was considered correct.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench answered the referred question in the negative, holding that the transfer of the right to recover profits along with the transfer of the land is not hit by Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act. The decree of the trial court awarding Rs. 375 to the Plaintiff was restored, and the decree of the lower appellate court was vacated. The Plaintiff's claim was thus enforceable, and the compensation determined by the trial court was upheld.