TMI Blog1935 (5) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hypothecation bond Ex. B, in favour of the plaintiff on August 15, 1919, in respect of the subscriptions he had paid for five instalments in the chit fund. On October 5, 1921, Chellam Ayyar, and his brother, Krishna Ayyar, executed another hypothecation bond, Ex. II, in favour of the fifth defendant in respect of the amounts paid by them for six instalments in the chit fund (including the amount paid for five instalments for which Ex. B. had already been executed). The fifth defendant gave notice Ex. IV, to the first defendant on October 6, 1921. The plaintiff also sent notices to the first and third defendants on October 26, 1921 (Vide Exs. E-2 and E). The amount of the subscriptions was, however, not payable by the stoke-holders, accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not, therefore, allow the fifth defendant argue it over again. 4. The only question for decision, therefore is which of the hypothecations--the plaintiffs or the fifth defendant's--is entitled priority. Chellam Ayyar's right to receive the amounts subscribed by him for the chit fund is certainly an actionable claim. The claim (in respect of the five instalment paid by him) must be deemed to have beer effectively transferred by him to the plaintiff when he executed the hypothecation bone Ex. B. No other act on the part of Chellam Ayyar, or the plaintiff was necessary to complete the title of the plaintiff to recover the amount, for Section 130, Transfer of Property Act, lays down: The transfer of an actionable claim shall b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entitled to such priority, and the reason for it is clear. According to the Bankruptcy Law, which was in force at the time the case of Dearle v. Hall (sic), was decided, in cases of assignments of choses in action, notice was necessary in order to take the property out of the order and disposition of the bankrupt. The doctrine was extended to other cases also and it came to be held that the title of an assignee of a chose in action was not, complete until he gave a notice of the assignment to the debtor. This was subsequently recognised in the Supreme Court a of Judicature Act, 1873 (vide Section 25(b). If, therefore, a notice is essential to perfect the t title of an assignee, that assignee who gives notice earlier, perfects his title ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
