Actionable claim for debt can be transferred under Section 130 of Transfer of Property Act, allowing Plaintiff to sue in her own name and recover the suit claim.

This Summary Suit is filed for a decree in the sum of Rs.1,13,06,769.40 together with interest on the basis of a written contract evidenced by four documents, all in connection with earth filing work carried out by the Plaintiff for the Defendant. Upon unconditional leave to defend being granted to the Defendant, the Defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. Issues were thereupon framed and oral and documentary evidence was led by the parties. I have heard the constituted attorney of the Plaintiff and learned Counsel for the Defendant. This order disposes of the suit.

2. The Plaintiff claims to be carrying on business in civil construction works as a proprietress through herself and earlier through her predecessor in title in the name and style of M/s. Sterling Engineering Co.(The references to 'Plaintiff' hereafter include her predecessor in title as well.) It is the case of the Plaintiff that in or around March 1994, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff for earth filling work at Dolvi Village, Pen Taluka, District Raigad in Maharashtra on cubic metre basis. By an offer letter dated 14 March 1994, the Plaintiff submitted a quotation for the work. The quotation was revised after negotiations and discussions between the parties by a letter dated 21 March 1994. By letter dated 25 April 1994, the Defendant accepted the revised quotation and offered the work to the Plaintiff on terms and conditions mentioned therein. The Plaintiff accepted the offer with certain variations, modifications and limitations set out in letter dated 2 May 1994. The Plaintiff, thereafter, mobilised machinery and manpower and started the contract work at the site under the supervision and approval of the site engineer of the Defendant. The Plaintiff raised invoices from time to time. It is the Plaintiff's case that all invoices were duly received and accepted by the Defendant and no objection was raised as to the quality or quantity of the work referred to therein or the rates or amounts claims therein. The Plaintiff claims that after adjusting various sums paid by the Defendant towards these invoices, there is due and payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,13,06,769.40, in accordance with particulars of claim annexed as Exhibit “M” to the plaint.

3. These are the bare facts of the Plaintiff's case. There is one more additional aspect of her case. The Plaintiff-Prabha Shenai-claims to have taken over the assets, book debts and liabilities of the proprietorship firm from its erstwhile proprietor Prakash Shenai – under a writing dated 30 April 1998. Prakash Shenai is the husband of the Plaintiff. (Incidentally, it was he who appeared as a constituted attorney of the Plaintiff at the trial and at the hearing before me.) One of the issues arising in this suit concerns the entitlement of the Plaintiff to recover the suit dues.

4. The Defendant, in its written statement, apart from contesting the Plaintiff's locus, on the ground of lack of privity, disputes the Plaintiff's entitlement to payment under the invoices, referred to as 'on account bills', on the ground of want of certification of the bills by the Engineer of the Defendant. The Defendant submits that the Plaintiff failed and neglected to perform the contractual obligation of 50000 cubit metres of earth filling per month and barely managed 6000 cubic metres work per month. It is submitted that the work was not completed/done properly; that the work was of poor quality; and that as a result the Defendant suffered damages.

5. On these pleadings, the following issues were framed by my predecessor:

“1. Whether the Plaintiff is the sole proprietor of M/s. Sterling Engineering Co., entitled to file the present suit.

2. Where there is a privity of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

3. Whether the contract between the parties was modified on 02.05.1995 by the parties.

4. Whether the parties performed their reciprocal promises under the contract that pr