informal/ oral arrangement was that the whole of the amount due and outstanding i.e. 57,324.70 plus interest aggregating to about Rs.1,45,000/odd would be paid for discharge of the insolvent and his estate. The case set up was, to my mind, quite absurd and amongst other things in the crosshairs of Section 91 of the Evidence Act and the rule against parole evidence. Nothing in the deed of assignment dated 3-12-1989 or in the letter dated 13-12-1989 addressed by the claimant to the assignee and to the Receiver, at the relevant time, indicates that the sum of Rs.18,000/- was not duly received by the creditor as consideration for the execution of the deed of assignment. Contrarily the deed of assignment dated 3-12-1989 categorically states that the consideration of Rs.18,000/- was duly “paid” at the time of the execution of the assignment deed. There is nothing on record, except the ipse dixit of the applicant's assertion, to establish that aside of Rs.18,000/- admittedly paid as consideration by the assignee Sudarshan Soni HUF, further amounts were payable for the complete discharge of the insolvent debtor Bhag Chand Soni and his estate. Aside of the above, the consequences of assignment in terms of Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are inexorable and the assignor stands divested to all rights in respect of assigned claim. Such a situation obtains in the present case.
