Provident fund balance as actionable claim, with security assignment effective but later enforcement barred after election of remedy.

Money standing to the credit of a provident fund subscriber is an actionable claim because the subscriber has a right to receive a definite sum, not ownership of specific coins. Such a claim may be assigned by way of collateral security, and the assignee acquires the transferor's rights and remedies subject to any personal disability under law. Where the assignee was personally barred from enforcing the claim and instead chose to sue only on the underlying hand-note, the later suit founded on the assignment was treated as barred after abandonment of the security. The document states that the provident fund claim is transferable, but enforcement depends on the assignee's legal capacity and election of remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the right to receive money standing to credit in a provident fund is an actionable claim; (ii) whether an assignment of such right by way of collateral security transfers enforceable rights to the assignee; (iii) whether the subsequent suit by the assignee was maintainable in view of the statutory bar and the earlier election to sue on the hand-note.

Issue (i): Whether the right to receive money standing to credit in a provident fund is an actionable claim.

Analysis: The right in question was not ownership of specific coins or a tangible movable in possession, but only a right to receive a definite sum out of the provident fund under the rules governing the fund. The money credited to a subscriber was payable only by reason of the obligation created by the fund rules, and the subscriber had no right to identify and follow specific coins. Such a claim answered the statutory description of a debt or other actionable claim under the Transfer of Property Act.

Conclusion: The provident fund balance was an actionable claim.

Issue (ii): Whether an assignment of such right by way of collateral security transfers enforceable rights to the assignee.

Analysis: An actionable claim is property capable of transfer, and transfer by written instrument passes the transferor's rights and remedies to the transferee. The statutory scheme contemplates not only absolute transfers but also transfers by way of security. Accordingly, an assignee for security steps into the shoes of the assignor and may enforce the claim against the debtor, subject to any statutory restriction affecting the assignee personally.

Conclusion: The assignment transferred the assignor's rights to the plaintiff, but only within the limits imposed by law.

Issue (iii): Whether the subsequent suit by the assignee was maintainable in view of the statutory bar and the earlier election to sue on the hand-note.

Analysis: The assignee was a legal practitioner and was therefore barred from enforcing the actionable claim in court. Instead of proceeding on the assignment, he elected to sue on the hand-note against the debtor alone and obtained a decree on that basis. The cause of action on the debt and the security were treated as one, and by pursuing the personal claim alone the plaintiff abandoned the rights arising under the assignment deed. In these circumstances, the later suit founded on the assignment could not be maintained.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the plaintiff could not stand, and the action based on the assignment failed at the appellate stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Money standing to the credit of a provident fund subscriber is an actionable claim, and although such a claim may be transferred by way of security, an assignee who is personally disabled from enforcing it cannot later maintain a suit on the assignment after having elected to proceed only on the underlying debt and thereby abandoned the security.

---