Assignment of future debt claim attached to decree on creation; assignee could execute only for the secured amount.

An assignment by way of mortgage executed before a decree was passed was held to attach to the decree when it later came into existence, because the underlying claim was a debt and an actionable claim capable of assignment. The assignee was entitled to execute the decree only to the extent of the secured amount under the terms of the mortgage, with any balance remaining payable to the assignor. A declaratory suit seeking recognition as decree-assignee was maintainable without further consequential relief, and the concurrent factual finding that the mortgage bond was supported by consideration and not benami could not be disturbed in second appeal. The appeal therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an assignment by way of mortgage executed before the decree was passed could operate on the decree when it came into existence; (ii) whether a mortgagee assignee of only part of the decretal amount could seek execution under the decree; (iii) whether a declaratory suit was maintainable without claiming further consequential relief; and (iv) whether the finding that the mortgage bond was supported by consideration and was not benami could be disturbed in second appeal.

Issue (i): whether an assignment by way of mortgage executed before the decree was passed could operate on the decree when it came into existence.

Analysis: The transfer related to a debt claim arising out of unpaid bills, not to a mere right to sue for unliquidated damages. A claim to a debt is an actionable claim and can be assigned. An assignment of future or non-existing property is valid and attaches when the property comes into existence. When the decree was ultimately passed for a definite sum, the mortgage attached to it and the transfer was not invalid merely because the decree had not then been in existence.

Conclusion: The assignment was valid and did operate on the decree when it came into existence.

Issue (ii): whether a mortgagee assignee of only part of the decretal amount could seek execution under the decree.

Analysis: The instrument created a mortgage over the decretal proceeds for securing repayment of the money advanced, with the balance, if any, remaining payable to the assignor. The assignee was entitled under the terms of the bond to realize the secured amount out of the decree, and the form of relief granted by the lower appellate court was proper.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to execute the decree to the extent of the secured amount.

Issue (iii): whether a declaratory suit was maintainable without claiming further consequential relief.

Analysis: The only effective relief needed was a declaration that the plaintiff was an assignee of the decree. On obtaining such declaration, execution could be pursued under the procedural rule governing execution by transferees of decrees. No injunction or other consequential relief was necessary at that stage.

Conclusion: The suit for declaration was maintainable.

Issue (iv): whether the finding that the mortgage bond was supported by consideration and was not benami could be disturbed in second appeal.

Analysis: The lower appellate court recorded a finding on evidence that the mortgage bond was for consideration and not benami. That was a finding of fact based on evidence and reasons, and it could not be reopened in second appeal.

Conclusion: The factual finding was not liable to interference in second appeal.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full, and the respondent's entitlement to realize the secured amount under the decree was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An assignment of a future debt claim may validly attach to the resulting decree when it comes into existence, and a factual finding based on evidence cannot be disturbed in second appeal merely because the appellate court would have reached a different view.

---