The judgment established the importance of complying with legal provisions and providing evidence for assignments, emphasizing the requirements for a valid assignment under relevant statutes and case law.

Ramesam, J.

1. The facts of this Second Appeal may be briefly stated. The 2nd defendant is a contractor who entered into a building contract in respect of the Vellore Municipal Hospital works with the P.W. Department. By September 1914 a sum of Rs. 2,156-8-1 was due to him. At that time he owed Rs. 1,600 to the 3rd defendant. When the 3rd defendant demanded the payment of his debts, he executed certain letters intending (I, assume this in favour of 3rd defendant) to transfer Rs. 1,600 out of the amount due to him from the P.W.D. In December, 1914, he owed Rs. 6,750 - to the plaintiffs and intending to transfer the whole of this said amount, he executed similar letters. The documents that came into existence in September and December respectively may be shown in a tabular form as follows:

From the table below, it is seen that on; each occasion, the scheme was the same, consisting of (1) a letter from assignor to assignee as an instrument of transfer (2) 3rd Defendant Plaintiffs dated 22-9-14 dated 10-12-14

2nd Defendant to assignee. Latter not Exhibit C. exhibited

2nd Defendant to the Executive Engineer I " E.

Assignee To Executive Engineer III " D.

Reply by Executive Engineer to Assignee II Endorsement on D.

a letter from assignor to Executive Engineer being the notice intended by Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. The letter of transfer to the 3rd defendant though referred to in Exhibit III is not forthcoming. It is not admitted to be unstamped (D.W. 1.) and no secondary evidence can be given of its contents : Rajah of Bobbili v. Inuganti China Sitaramaswami Guru (1900) 23 Mad. 40. In the written statement of 3rd defendant, it was alleged (paras 3 and 5 "When the second defendant was demanded payment, he gave this defendant a letter of authority asking him to draw Rs. 1,600 from the amount due to him for the Pentland Hospital works and also he sent a letter to the Executive Engineer, North Arcot, asking him to pay the said amount to this defendant. This was on or about the 22nd September 1914. The alleged assignment referred to in para 4 of the plaint is a fraud and not sustainable in law when the second defendant had already gives latter of assignment to this defendant to draw the amount, referred to in para 3 of this statement." It is therefore clear that the only assignment to the 3rd defendant pleaded by him is the letter addressed to him of which no secondary evidence can be given. As the assignment to 3rd defendant cannot be proved, it follows that there is no assignment in his favour and the appeal must fail on this ground. Mr. Anantakrishna Iyer contends that, apart from the assignment intended by the missing letter, Exhibit I only is enough to prove an assignment. In the first place, this is opposed to the pleadings in which the letter of 29-9-1914 other than Exhibit I was described as the letter of assignment and the plea cannot be allowed to be raised. In the second place, to allow the plea to be raised is an evasion of Section 91 of the Evidence Act and of the Stamp Law and the principle of ruling in Rajah of Bobbili v. Inuganti China Sitaramaswami Guru (1900) 23 Mad.

40. A perusal of Exhibits I and III only or of even I alone leaves in ones mind the impression that something like a transfer was intended. It is so easy to infer the transfer but to allow such an inference to be made and to give effect to it is to allow secondary evidence of the letter of assignment to be given.

2. For the sake of argument, I will leave these two considerations aside and consider the question whether Exhibit I by itself amounts to an assignment. In my opinion, if the matter is dealt with, apart from the English decisions to be considered lower down, it does not. There must be words of transfer in the instrument. A notice to the debtor not containing words of transfer nor referring to a transfer is not an instrument of transfer. Otherwise every order of payment is a transfer. Every cheque or bill of exchange is a transfer. I