Mere right to sue cannot be assigned: a deed for enhanced acquisition compensation fails without proof of genuine execution.

A transaction that assigns only the right to pursue enhanced compensation after land acquisition is a mere right to sue and is not transferable under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Where the acquired land had already vested in the State and the vendors had received the estimated compensation, a deed purporting to transfer only objections, references, appeals and claims for higher compensation could not convey any interest in the land. The text also notes that if execution of such a deed is not satisfactorily proved, and the beneficiary fails to discharge the shifted burden on genuineness, the deed cannot support a compensation claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale deed dated 8.2.1994 was void under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as a transfer of a mere right to sue; (ii) Whether the sale deed dated 8.2.1994 was forged and fictitious, and whether the respondents were entitled to compensation.

Issue (i): Whether the sale deed dated 8.2.1994 was void under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as a transfer of a mere right to sue.

Analysis: The land had already vested in the State after acquisition proceedings and possession had been taken. On the terms of the deed, the vendors had already received the estimated compensation and purported to transfer only the right to seek higher compensation and to prosecute objections, references, appeals, revisions and writs. Such a transaction did not convey an interest in the acquired land but only a speculative claim for enhanced compensation. A mere right to sue is not transferable under the statutory exception in Section 6(e).

Conclusion: The sale deed was void under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the finding was against the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the sale deed dated 8.2.1994 was forged and fictitious, and whether the respondents were entitled to compensation.

Analysis: The execution of the deed was not satisfactorily proved. One attesting witness had not signed the document, the document's author was not properly corroborated by surrounding records, and the respondents did not produce the best available evidence from the registration office despite the challenge of impersonation and fabrication. The appellants discharged the initial burden by giving direct evidence and expert evidence, after which the onus shifted to the respondents to prove genuineness. The court held that this onus was not discharged and that the trial court had misapplied the distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof. On the compensation issue, there was no reliable basis to treat the respondents as entitled holders under the disputed deed.

Conclusion: The deed was held to be not proved as genuine, and the respondents were not entitled to compensation under it.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition compensation claim based on the disputed sale deed failed, the appellants succeeded, and the decree of the court below was set aside with the suit decreed in their favour.

Ratio Decidendi: A transaction that merely assigns the right to pursue enhanced compensation after acquisition is a non-transferable mere right to sue, and where the execution of such a deed is not proved by the beneficiary, the deed cannot sustain a claim to compensation.

---