Provident fund credits can be transferred as actionable claims, and a trust over future entitlements may be validly created.

A contingent provident fund credit and the member's beneficial interest in it may constitute an actionable claim transferable by written instrument. A trust over that interest is valid if the trust property is identified with reasonable certainty, even where the exact amount is not yet ascertained, and the deed satisfies the requirements of intention, purpose, beneficiary and subject matter. The fund rule against assignment does not defeat a transfer of the future entitlement, and the absence of compulsory registration does not invalidate the instrument in the stated circumstances. The result is that the trust remains operative and enforceable over the relevant fund monies.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the credit standing to a member's account in the provident fund, together with the member's beneficial interest therein, constituted an actionable claim capable of transfer; (ii) whether the trust deed sufficiently identified the trust property and complied with the requirements for creation of a valid trust; (iii) whether the deed was avoided by the provident fund rule against assignment or by any supposed need for registration.

Issue (i): Whether the credit standing to a member's account in the provident fund, together with the member's beneficial interest therein, constituted an actionable claim capable of transfer.

Analysis: The credit in the provident fund was payable on the occurrence of the contingency provided by the rules, namely retirement, and was not merely a speculative expectancy. A debt may be existent, accruing, conditional, or contingent, and the member's credit represented money ultimately payable to him under the fund rules. The member also had a beneficial interest in that credit, and the existence of trustees holding the fund moneys did not alter the essential character of the member's claim.

Conclusion: The credit and the beneficial interest were actionable claims and were capable of being transferred.

Issue (ii): Whether the trust deed sufficiently identified the trust property and complied with the requirements for creation of a valid trust.

Analysis: The trust deed identified the subject matter with reasonable certainty by referring to the member's provident fund credit and related monies, even though the exact amount was not then ascertainable. The law requires reasonable certainty, not exact precision, and a trust may be created in respect of property contingently expected to come into existence or to be ascertained later. The deed therefore satisfied the statutory requirements as to intention, purpose, beneficiary, and trust property.

Conclusion: The trust property was sufficiently identified and the deed complied with the requirements for a valid trust.

Issue (iii): Whether the deed was avoided by the provident fund rule against assignment or by any supposed need for registration.

Analysis: The deed operated as a transfer of the future entitlement and not as a prohibited assignment of existing money standing to the member's credit. The rule against assignment of credit entries did not defeat the trust. Since the property was transferable by instrument in writing, the trust property was effectively transferred to the trustees, and the question of compulsory registration did not defeat the instrument in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The deed was not void under the fund rules and remained an operative and enforceable trust.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff established a valid and enforceable trust over the relevant fund monies and related property, and the defendant was bound to hand over the trust assets to the trustee.

Ratio Decidendi: A contingent provident fund credit and the member's beneficial interest therein can constitute an actionable claim transferable by written instrument, and a trust of such property is valid if the trust property is indicated with reasonable certainty and the instrument effects a transfer to trustees.

---