Transfer of accrued profits with land is not a mere right to sue; factual compensation finding was upheld.

A transfer of accrued profits from land, when incidental to and connected with a transfer of the land itself, is not a transfer of a mere right to sue and therefore is not barred by Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act. The court distinguished a bare cause of action from a claim to past profits annexed to proprietary enjoyment, and held that the latter is enforceable. On quantum, the findings that the alleged oral agreement for 4,000 cocoanuts was not proved and that Rs. 375 was fair compensation were findings of fact not open to interference in second appeal, so the trial court's decree was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether a transfer of the right to recover past profits arising out of land, when made along with a transfer of the land itself, is hit by Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act; and whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover more than the amount found by the trial court.

Analysis: Section 6(e) prohibits transfer of a mere right to sue. The prohibition is directed against a bare cause of action and not against a right to recover profits that is connected with the enjoyment and transfer of the property from which those profits arose. The word "mere" is significant, and the transfer is outside the mischief of the section where the claim to past profits is incidental to, and supported by, the transfer of the land itself. On the facts, the right to receive cocoanuts was closely linked with the appellant's position as transferee of the property and was not a bare right to litigate. As to quantum, the findings of both lower courts that the oral agreement for 4,000 cocoanuts was not proved and that Rs. 375 represented fair compensation were findings of fact not open to interference in second appeal.

Conclusion: The transfer of the claim to past profits was valid and not barred by Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellant was entitled only to the amount decreed by the trial court, and the lower appellate decree was erroneous.

Final Conclusion: The legal position was settled in favour of enforceability of a claim to past profits where it is annexed to the transfer of the property itself, and the trial court decree was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer of a claim to profits already accrued from land is not a mere right to sue within Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act when the claim is incidental to and sufficiently connected with the transfer of the land itself.

---