Equitable charge over future timber fund upheld where contemporaneous documents showed payment was to come from the timber.

Contemporaneous beechak and promissory note were construed together and found to show an intention that payment come out of the timber in the Unadi Jungle, creating an equitable charge rather than a mere fixing of time for payment. The charge was held capable of attaching to future or after-acquired property and to a fund not yet in existence, so long as the property could later come into existence. Expressions directing payment out of a particular fund were treated as sufficient to create the charge when the fund arose. Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was noted as not controlling the matter in Punjab, so the result turned on equity. The equitable charge was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the contemporaneous beechak and promissory note created an equitable charge on the timber in the Unadi Jungle, including timber not yet removed or appropriated, so as to entitle the plaintiff to recover the decretal amount and interest out of that fund.

Analysis: The contemporaneous documents were read together as part of the same transaction. The language used was treated as showing an intention that payment should come out of the timber and not merely fixing a time for payment. The Court applied equitable principles governing future or after-acquired property, holding that a charge may attach to property or a fund that is not yet in existence but which is capable of coming into existence later. Expressions such as payment out of a particular fund were treated as sufficient to create a charge when the fund subsequently arose. Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was noted as not controlling the matter in Punjab, so the decision rested on equity.

Conclusion: The beechak created a valid equitable charge on the defendants' timber in the Unadi Jungle, and the appeal failed.

---