HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
G. K. Misra, J.
UCHHAB PATRA - Appellant
Versus
BRUNDABAN MALLIK - Respondent
Misc. Appeal 135 Of 1967
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 03, 1968
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 6 - TRANSFER OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - TRANSFERABILITY - CLAIM FOR DAMAGES INCIDENTAL TO PROPERTY TRANSFERRED - NOT A MERE RIGHT TO SUE.
Fact of the Case:
Brundaban Padhan filed a Money Suit against Brunduban Malik for damages caused by trespass and forcible possession of his land. During the pendency of the suit, Brundaban Padhan transferred the land and the right to claim damages to Uehhab Patra. Uehhab Patra did not get himself substituted in the suit and the decree was passed in favor of Brundaban Padhan. Uehhab Patra filed an execution case to realize the decretal dues, which was objected to by Brunduban Malik under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, arguing that the decree was not executable by the transferee and the subject matter was not transferable under Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transferee could proceed with the execution even though he failed to get himself substituted in the suit before the decree was passed. The court also held that the claim for damages, being incidental to the property transferred, was not a mere right to sue and was therefore transferable.
Issues: 1. Whether the transferee can proceed with the execution if he failed to get himself substituted in the suit before the decree was passed. 2. Whether the claim for damages is transferable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Order 22, Rule 10(1) of the Civil Procedure Code enables the transferee to continue the suit with the leave of the court, but it does not bar the transferor from continuing the suit for the benefit of his successor. 2. A mere right to sue is a right unconnected with the ownership of any property, but a right to recover damages in respect of a property transferred with the property itself is not a mere right to sue.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgments of the lower courts, overruled the objection under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, and allowed the execution case to proceed.
G. K. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) 0. 37 acre of land of plot No. 298 appertaining to Khata No. 63 in village nuagada in the district of Puri belonged to one Brundaban Padhan. The respondent, Brunduban Malik trespassed upon this land and forcibly possessed 0. 31 acre out of it. Brundaban Padhan filed Money Suit No. 330 of 1960 in the court of Munsiff Puri for recovery of damages of Rupees 219 from the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, Brundaban Padhan transferred the land along with the right of realisation of Rs. 219 representing the claim for damages by a registered sale deed dated 27-5-61 in favour of Uehhab Patra (appellant ). The appellant did not get himself substituted in place of Brunda-ban Fadhan in the suit under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil P. C. The suit was accordingly decreed in favour of Brundaban Padhan on 12-10-61. The appellant-transferee filed Execution case No. 43 of 1966 for realisation of the decretal dues against the respondent who filed an objection under Section 47 of the Civil P. C. that the decree was not executable by the transferee and that, the subject-matter of the decree was not transferable under Section 6 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act. The objection was accepted by the Courts below. Against the confirming appellate decree this appeal has been filed by the transferee.
( 2 ) TWO questions arise for consideration- (i) Whether the transferee can proceed with the execution once he failed to get himself substituted in the suit itself before the decree was passed. (ii) Is the claim for damages transferable?
( 3 ) ORDER 22, Rule 10 (1) of the Civil P. C. lays down that in other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. This rule thus enables the transferee with the leave of the Court to continue the suit, The appellant could have made an application in the suit itself to be impleaded as a plaintiff in place of Brundaban Padhan. In fact, he did not do so. The question is whether he is precluded from continuing the execution after the decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff despite the transfer during the pendency of the suit. Though the aforesaid rule enables the transferee to continue the suit, it is no bar to the transferor continuing the suit for the benefit of his successor. The position of law was settled in AIR 1915 Cal 103, Rai Charan Mandal v. Biswanath Mandal, their Lordships observed that the plaintiff who has instituted a litigation may prosecute it to its conclusion notwithstanding a devolution of his interest in the property. The litigation will continue in his name for the benefit of his successor. Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil P. C. is an alternative procedure which guards against the danger that the original plaintiff being no longer interested in the proceedings may not vigorously prosecute them or may even collude with the adversary. The same view was taken in AIR 1936 Pat 420, Joti Lal Sah v. Sheodhayan prashad Sah. On the aforesaid analysis the execution by the appellant Is maintainable.
( 4 ) THE more important question, however, is whether the claim for damages which was the subject-matter of the Money Suit is not transferable. Section 6 of the transfer of Property Act so far it is relevant runs thus-Section 6--Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force. * * * * * (e) A mere right to sue cannot be transferred. It was contended in the Courts below that the transfer of the claim for damages which was the subject-matter of the Money Suit was a mere right to sue and as such it was not transferable. This contention prevailed with both the Courts below. The expression "a mere right to sue" means a right to sue unconnected with the ownership of any property. Mere right to sue is not property but is merely a titl
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.