MEHROTRA, C. J. : This appeal is by defendant No. 1 Charubala Dutta Roy. Plaintiff respondent No. 1 Ananta­mayee Nag brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,500/-against the appellant. The appellant is the pro­prietress of the Salchapra Tea Estate. Defendant No. 2 M/s. Standard Bank Ltd. was carrying on business in banking in the Silchar Branch and defendant No. 1 approached defendant No. 2 to advance money to her to run her garden. The crops were hypothecated. The defendant No. 1 ex­ecuted one hypothecation bond in favour of defen­dant No. 2 on the 4th February 1947, to draw from the defendant No. 2 bank maximum amount of Rs. 18,000 with interest thereon at 8 per cent per annum. One of the conditions of the bond was that defendant No. 1 was to pay the entire dues to the defendant No. 2 by the 31st December, 1947. Defendant No. 1 took loan from the defendant No. 2 of a total sum of Rs. 13,888-3-6. The amount was not paid to the bank defen­dant No. 2 and thus defendant No. 2 transferred the claim under the hypothecation bond to the plaintiff by an instrument dated the 4th February, 1948. In the plaint it is alleged that as the docu­ment of the 4th February, 1948 was not a regis­tered document, another deed was executed and duly registered on the 22nd June 1948. The plain­tiff made demands from the defendant No. 1 and on the 7th June 1948, defendant No. 1 paid to plaintiff a sum of Rs. l.000/- towards the repay­ment of the principal and interest through her husband Shri, J. K. Dutta Roy. As the balance was not paid the present suit has been brought for the recovery of the amount (2) The defence taken was that the fact that the defendant No. 1 withdrew from the bank a total sum of Rs. 13,888-3-6 is not true. The purchase by the plaintiff of the hypothecation bond is denied. In paragraph 10(c) of the written statement it is alleged that from February, 1947 to 11th September 1947, a total sum of Rs. 12,291/6/- was withdrawn by defendant No. 1 from the defendant bank and as the bank failed to advance further sums of money after 11th September 1947, the defendant No. 1 could not manufacture sufficient tea. A total sum of Rs. 12,291/6/- was withdrawn by defendant No. 1 from the defendant bank and as the bank failed to advance further sums of money after 11th September 1947, the defendant No. 1 could not manufacture sufficient tea. A total sum of Rs. 7,954-9-0 was paid by the defendant No. 1 to the bank. The defendant further claimed that the bank had sold export quota rights of defendant No. 1 for 1946-47 and 1947-48 and realised not less than Rs. 6,000 for which, however, the defendant No. 2 bank did not render any account 10 the defen­dant No. 1. It was further alleged that the defen­dant had two fixed deposits with the defendant No. 2 bank one for Rs. 2,500 at Silchar Branch and the other for Rs. 1,000 at the Shillong Branch but the defendant No. 2 having ceased to function and there being nobody representing the defendant No. 2, the defendant has not been able to realise the fixed deposit amounts. (3) The trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 4,100. The plea of limitation and plaintiff's right to sue was also taken by the defendant. The trial court found that as the transfer by defendant No. 2 to plaintiff was transfer of an actionable claim of debt which was due by the defendant No. 1 to the defen­dant No. 2, no registration of the deed was neces­sary and the plaintiff was entitled to sue on the basis of the transfer deed. As to the limitation the finding is that the account is a mutual account and thus the suit is within time. He further held that in the hypotheca­tion bond also it was stipulated that all dues are to be cleared by the last date of the year 1947. The 1st January of 1951 being a holiday the suit is filed on 2nd January 1951. So the suit was brought within three years from 1st January, 1948 and there­fore it was not barred. As to the liability of defendant No. 1 the finding of the court below is that the defendant herself admitted that she drew an amount of Rs. 12, 300 from the bank from 31st January, 1947 till 11th September, 1947 and as per plaintiff's account Rs. 10/1/- were transfer costs. Out of this total amount of Rs. 12.310/1/- the defendant claimed that she paid Rs. 7955/2/-. The plaintiff thus was entitled to get the balance of Rs. 12, 300 from the bank from 31st January, 1947 till 11th September, 1947 and as per plaintiff's account Rs. 10/1/- were transfer costs. Out of this total amount of Rs. 12.310/1/- the defendant claimed that she paid Rs. 7955/2/-. The plaintiff thus was entitled to get the balance of Rs. 4,354/15/- only. Out of the sum of Rs. 4,354/15/- the court below has deducted the sum of Rs. 1,000 which the plaintiff admitted to have been paid to her. The I court below has thus decreed Rs. 3,354/15/- as I principal and Rs. 745/1/- as interest (4) In appeal a number of points have been placed before us. It is firstly contended that the transfer in favour of the plaintiff was not a transfer of an actionable claim and as such unless it was registered, the plaintiff had no right to bring a suit on the basis of the said transfer. Secondly it is urged that there was no open mutual current account between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and as such the starting point of limitation will be from the date of each advance made to the defendant No. 1 by the bank, and the present suit is barred by limitation. It was lastly contend­ed that the plaintiff should have given credit of Rs. 2,500 fixed deposit amount and also for the money which the bank got by direct sale of the export quota of the defendant for 1946-47 and 1947-48. If the defendant gets a set-off in respect of these amounts the entire liability of the defen­dant is wiped off. (5) The words 'mutual, open and current account' occurring in Article 85 of the Limitation Act mean that the transactions must be both on the debit and credit sides creating independent obliga­tion. If there is an entry shown on one side which is set-off by payment of the debt, it cannot be said to be open, mutual and current account. There must be an existence of reciprocity of demands. The essence thus of the mutual, open and current account is that there must be independent dealings between the parties which can be duly set-off against each other. This principle has been very well recognised and it is not necessary to refer to authorities on the point. There must be an existence of reciprocity of demands. The essence thus of the mutual, open and current account is that there must be independent dealings between the parties which can be duly set-off against each other. This principle has been very well recognised and it is not necessary to refer to authorities on the point. In the present case admittedly there is no account between the plaintiff and the defendant, much less an open, mutual and current account. The account of the defendant No. 1 if at all, was with the bank which is the transferor of The plain­tiff, and thus there can be no question of an inde­pendent transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. Even as between the bank and the defendant No. 1 there is no reciprocity of independent transactions. Article 85 thus will not be attracted in the present case. But if the right of the bank based on the hypothecation bond was validly transferred to the plaintiff, the bond itself contained a provision that the money could be re-i paid by the last date of the year 1947. The suit was thus filed within time. (6) Mr. Choudhury for the appellant has further contended that Article 66 of the Limitation Act will not apply in the present case as the bond ex­ecuted by defendant No. 1 in favour of the bank is not a single bond. Even if Article 66 is not attracted the residuary Article 120 will apply. Arti­cle 115 of the Limitation Act also provides for a limitation of three years for compensation for the breach of any contract, express or implied, not in writing registered and not herein provided for. Under the bond there was a promise to pay up the dues by the last date of the year 1947 and it that promise was not fulfilled, there was a breach of the agreement and thus Article 115 will also be attracted. In any view of the matter the suit having been filed within three years from the date on which' the cause of action arose, the suit is within time. (7) The next point urged by the appellant is that on calculation the entire amount has been paid up. In the plaint the plaintiff has claimed Rs. 9.500/- as the amount due. (7) The next point urged by the appellant is that on calculation the entire amount has been paid up. In the plaint the plaintiff has claimed Rs. 9.500/- as the amount due. In the written state­ment at paragraph 11( c) it was stated as follows: "But it is not true that this defendant drew Rs. 13,888-3-6 pies from defendant No. 2, Bank. This defendant drew, from February, 1947 to the 11th September 1947, a total sum of Rs. 12,291-6-0 from the defendant No. 2 Bank. Which, however, failed to advance further sums of money to this defendant after 11th September, 1947 causing a great loss to her as she could not manufacture suffi­cient tea for want of funds. This defendant, in turn repaid in cash a total sum of Rs. 7,954-9-0 on various dates during the same period." The trial court has accepted the defence case that Rs. 12,310/1/- were paid to the defendant by the bank between the 31st January till 11th September, 1947 and has deducted the amount already paid by the defendant amounting to Rs. 795S/2/-. The plaintiff thus was entitled to get the balance of Rs. 4.354/15/- only. Deducting from this amount a sum of Rs. l.000/- admittedly paid by the defen­dant, a decree for Rs. 3,354/15/- has been passed with interest. (8) The contention raised by the defendant ap­pellant is that the defendant had two fixed deposit receipts with the defendant bank - one for Rs. 2.500/- at Silchar Branch and the other for Rs. 1,000/- at Shillong Branch and that amount should have been credited with the defendant's account with the bank. There is no evidence to show that these fixed deposits matured before the transfer was made of the liability of the defendant to the bank to the plaintiff and further that there was any direction given by the defendant No. 1 to the bank for adjusting these amounts of the fixed deposits towards the over-draft account. The other amount claimed as set off by the defendant is the sale proceeds of export quota rights for 1946-47 and 1947-48 possessed by the defendant. It is alleged in the written statement that the bank must have realised by sale of these export quota rights not less than Rs. 6,000/-. The other amount claimed as set off by the defendant is the sale proceeds of export quota rights for 1946-47 and 1947-48 possessed by the defendant. It is alleged in the written statement that the bank must have realised by sale of these export quota rights not less than Rs. 6,000/-. There is no evi­dence to show that the export quota rights for 1946-47 and 1947-48 were sold by the bank the sale proceeds of which under the terms of the bond the defendant was entitled to get credited towards her over-draft account. Moreover the plaintiff claimed to be the assignee of the right under the hypothecation bond of the Bank and even if the bank had sold the export quota rights, the defendant had a right to bring a suit against the bank and in that suit the matter would have been investigated. But she cannot claim a set off in this suit. There is thus no force in the conten­tion of the appellant that the amount claimed by the plaintiff has already been paid up. (9) The main point urged is that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff had no right to sue. The court below has held that the hypothecation bond itself not being registered, no registration was necessary to transfer the rights and liabilities under the hypothecation bond. The court below has fur­ther held that the sum and substance of the transac­tion by Ext. 1 is only transfer of an actionable claim of debt of money which was due by the defendant No. 1 to the defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff got no other rights by Ext. 1 except to realise the amount of the debt which will be found due to the defendant No. 2 by the defendant No. 1. As the transfer of the debt was made by the Managing Director of the bank defendant No. 2, the court below has held that the transfer was valid. (10) The hypothecation deed was executed by Charubala Dutta Roy defendant No. 1 in favour of the Standard Bank Limited defendant No. 2 on the 4th February 1947. Paragraph 3 of the docu­ment reads as follows: "Now these presents witnesseth that, in pur­suance of the said agreement and in consideration of the premises and as security for all advances and payments to be made up to the maximum amount of Rs. Paragraph 3 of the docu­ment reads as follows: "Now these presents witnesseth that, in pur­suance of the said agreement and in consideration of the premises and as security for all advances and payments to be made up to the maximum amount of Rs. 18,000 (Rupees Eighteen thousand) with in­terest thereon at 8 per cent, per annum as herein­after mentioned. The proprietress assigns up to the Bank by way of Hypothecation all that the Tea crops including the tea seeds and Export Quota and production rights of the said Tea Estate of the Proprietress all other accretions existing and accru­ing hereinafter to the said Tea Estate together with all and every kind of produces now or hereafter to be grown or manufactured during the period beginning from the month of April, 1947 and ending in the month of December, 1947." Paragraph 13 further provides that the defendant No. 1 agrees that these presents shall be a con­tinuing security to defendant No. 2 for the floating balance of account for the time being due or owing by defendant No. 1 to defdt. No. 2 in respect of the said advance to an extent not exceeding at any time the sum of Rs. 18,000 (rupees eighteen thous­and) notwithstanding that any time or times the balance of the said account may be in favour of defendant No. 1 and no balance may be due thereon to defendant No. 2, it being expressly intended that these presents shall be a security for such floating balance of account to the extent aforesaid whilst and so long as the said account shall remain open in the books of defendant No. 2. Paragraph 17 provides that if the whole of this hypothecation loan with interest, commission and costs are not paid up within the 31st Decem­ber, 1947, the tea crop of the Tea Estate for the season 1947 along with the Export, production or other rights that may be granted to the Tea Estate (of the defendant No. 1) for the season 1947 will remain charged for the due repayment of any balance that may remain due. By the deed dated the 4th February, 1948 the rights of the Bank defendant No. 2 under this bond were transferred to the plaintiff. The deed of sale recites that under the hypothecation bond the bank had advanced a total sum of Rs. By the deed dated the 4th February, 1948 the rights of the Bank defendant No. 2 under this bond were transferred to the plaintiff. The deed of sale recites that under the hypothecation bond the bank had advanced a total sum of Rs. 13,888/3/6 to the defendant No. 1 by way of finance for the management of her Garden and as the vendor, that is the Bank, is the owner and in possession of the said' hypothecation deed and is the holder of all rights' and obligations thereunder, the Bank offered to plaintiff to sell the rights for Rs. 8,675/-. The plaintiff accepted the offer and agreed to purchase the same accordingly. Thus the Bank sold and transferred the aforesaid hypothecation deed to the said purchaser on receipt of the stipulated sum of Rs. 8,675/- and from that date the vendor wasdivested of all the rights and liabilities under the said hypothecation deed and the same were vested in the said purchaser with all the rights and claims that had accrued and were to be accrued in future under the said deed to the owner and holder there­of. The purchasers were given full powers to deal with the hypothecated properties and exercise con­trol over the same pursuant to the terms and condi­tions of the hypothecation deed. 'Actionable claim' has been defined under sec­tion 3 of the Transfer of Property Act as meaning a claim to any debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of immoveable property or by hypotheca­tion or pledge of moveable property, or to any beneficial interest in moveable property not in the possession, either actual or constructive, of the claimant, which the Civil Courts recognize as affording grounds for relief, whether such debt or beneficial interest be existent, accruing, conditional or contingent. The hypothecation bond thus is not an actionable claim as defined under the Transfer of Property Act. The debt under this deed has, been secured by hypothecation of moveable pro­perties and thus it cannot be said to be an action­able claim. The court below was not thus right in holding that it was a transfer of an actionable claim. The court below has held that in substance it was the transfer of the debt. It has further held that it was the transfer of a right to realise the debt. The court below was not thus right in holding that it was a transfer of an actionable claim. The court below has held that in substance it was the transfer of the debt. It has further held that it was the transfer of a right to realise the debt. The deed of transfer clearly shows that the transfer was of the rights under the hypothecation bond. In fact it was the deed itself which was transferred and the deed of transfer enumerates the consequences which were to follow the transfer of the deed. There is no transfer of the debt indepen­dent of the deed itself. In fact the debt was created by the advances made by the Bank from time to time to the defendant No. 1 and the hypothecation bond was only by way of security for the said advances and the transfer of the rights under the hypothecation bond thus cannot be treated to be the transfer of the debt. (11) Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that property of any kind may be trans­ferred, except as otherwise provided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force. Sub­section (e) of section 6 prohibits transfer of a mere light to sue. The court below 'held that the only right conferred by the deed of transfer on the plain­tiff was to realise the amount of the debt which will be found due to the defendant No. 2 by defen­dant No. 1. It was thus a transfer of a mere right to sue and not valid under section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act. It will appear that the transfer in favour of the plaintiff was not of the debt but the right under the hypothecation bond. The right under that bond is not an actionable claim and thus it could not be transferred as an actionable claim. It is not a property but a mere right to sue which has been transferred under the said docu­ment to the plaintiff. The Bank has been given right under the hypothecation bond to realise the amount by the sale of the crop. (12) Reliance is placed by the counsel for the appellant on the case of 'Imperial Bank of India v. Bengal National Bank, Ltd.' AIR 1931 PC 245. The Bank has been given right under the hypothecation bond to realise the amount by the sale of the crop. (12) Reliance is placed by the counsel for the appellant on the case of 'Imperial Bank of India v. Bengal National Bank, Ltd.' AIR 1931 PC 245. In order to appreciate the points decided in this case it is necessary to refer to some of the facts. The Bengal National Bank had borrowed some money from the Imperial Bank on or before the 4th May 1923, and executed and delivered to the Imperial Bank a debenture creating a floating charge on the whole undertaking, properties, assets and interests present and future of the respondent bank as security for the loan. Subsequently another dedenture was executed and delivered to the Im­perial Bank creating a similar floating charge as security for a further loan. None of these docu­ments were however, registered. The charge was to become fixed on the Bengal National Bank sus­pending payment which took place on the 28tb April 1927 and the Imperial Bank in accordance with the power given to it by the debentures ap­pointed receivers. Then in the same year 1927 a petition for winding up of the Bengal National Bank was made and on 2nd August 1927 a winding-up order was made. Thereafter the Imperial Bank, brought an action on the debentures and the recei­vers were appointed by the court Two of the receivers were subsequently in the winding-up pro­ceedings appointed liquidators and liquidators pre­sented an application to the court asking for direc­tions on various matters. The Bengal National Bank in ordinary course of business had advanced money to customers on over-draft account on the security of title-deeds deposited by the customers in respect of which loans at the date of the sus­pension of payment sums remained due to the bank and the bank continued to hold the security. The Imperial Bank claimed charge over the whole of the assets of the respondent the Bengal National Bank and the contention of the liquidators was that so far as the Imperial Bank sought to charge the debts secured on deposits of title-deeds, the deben­tures required registration and as the debentures were not registered, the Imperial Bank not only had no right against the properties comprised in the title deeds but also over the sums so secured. The High Court agreed with the contention of the liquidators. The High Court agreed with the contention of the liquidators. The Privy Council held that the Im­perial Bank by their debentures did not acquire any right, title or interest in the immovable property comprised in the title-deeds, in other words, the title-deeds were not available to them as security for any of the debts which the deeds were deposited to secure and consequently the debenture-holders could not control such securities, or the deposition of them, or take steps to enforce them either in their own name or in the name of the Bank. But they had a charge over debts due to the bank whether secured or not and was entitled to the benefit of all sums received or to be received sub­sequent to charge becoming fixed in reduction of the debts whether from the realization of the securi­ties or otherwise. Reliance is placed on this dictum of their Lordships of the Privy Council in this case and it is contended that even though it is an actionable claim, the transferee can get the money from the debtors of the transferor. The following passage has been referred to: "The effect of the amendment is to restrict the statutory rights on transfer such as the right to sue in the transferees' name, etc., to such transfers as are transfers of actionable claims as defined. There appears to be no difficulty in a transfer of a debt without the security; the original debtor can always redeem the relations between him and his original creditor are not altered: indeed, in the pre­sent case it would appear that the Imperial Bank can only enforce the debt in the name of the res­pondent bank which, no doubt, the latter bank must permit. The transferee takes no further interest than the transferor was able to give him. The rights of the parties are further declared by the amended Sec. 134, T. P. Act, which would appear to apply to their case. The transferee takes no further interest than the transferor was able to give him. The rights of the parties are further declared by the amended Sec. 134, T. P. Act, which would appear to apply to their case. The result is that while the Imperial Bank have no right or interest in the immovable property of the respondent bank, including the immovable property over which the respondent bank hold security, the Imperial Bank have a charge over the debts due to the respondent bank, whether secured or not, and are entitled to the benefit of all sums received in reduction of the debts, whether from the realization of securities or otherwise." In this case the decision was based on the ground that the Imperial Bank had a charge over all the assets of the Bengal National Bank and as the debt due to the Bengal National Bank was a property which could be charged, the Imperial Bank was entitled to get the money due to the Bengal National Bank. But it was said that due to the amendment of the definition of the actionable claim, the trans­feree could only bring a suit in the name of the transferor and had no independent right to do so. (13) That the debt is a property cannot be denied and under the Transfer of Property Act pure and simple debt has been treated as an action­able claim under section 3. Sub-section (1) of sec­tion 130 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that the transfer of an actionable claim shall be effected only by the execution of an instrument in writing signed by the transferor and sub-section (2) of the section lays down that the transferee of an actionable claim may, upon the execution of such instrument of transfer as aforesaid, sue or institute proceedings for the same in his own name without obtaining the transferor's consent to such suit or proceedings and without making him a party thereto. In the case of an assignment of a simple debt as actionable claim the transferee can bring a suit or recovery of the debt by virtue of the provisions of section 130(2). In the case of an assignment of a simple debt as actionable claim the transferee can bring a suit or recovery of the debt by virtue of the provisions of section 130(2). But if the debt is taken out of the definition of the 'actionable claim' inasmuch as it is secured by the hypothecation of a moveable property, it cannot be transferred as an 'actionable claim' and the provisions of section 130(2) giving right to the transferee to sue on the basis of the transfer is not attracted. In the present case the debt was secured by the hypothecation of the stand­ing crop and thus it was not an 'actionable claim' and the transfer of the right under the deed will not thus attract the provisions of sec­tion 130(2). If the deed is interpreted to mean that a charge was created against an immoveable pro­perty by the deed and the charge could be transfer­red without a registration, the transferee acquires a right to enforce the charge. In the present case the suit is for the recovery of the debt and not for the enforcement of the charge. There may be a case as laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in AIR 1931 PC 245 referred to above where a debt secured by hypothecation of moveable property may not be an 'actionable claim' but the debt dissociated from the security is a property under section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act and as such may be transferable. But in that "case the proceedings for the recovery of the debt against the debtor has to be brought in the name of the transferor and not in the name of the transferee. The result is that in the present case the transfer was not of an actionable claim and as such the transferee by virtue of section 130(2) was not entitl­ed to bring a suit. As a transferee of the right of the pledgee the plaintiff could only bring a suit for the enforcement of the charge. As the debt secured by the hypothecation of moveable pro­perties is itself a property and the present transfer is of such a debt, the transferee in his name cannot bring a suit for the recovery of the debt. In the result therefore, in our opinion the suit as framed is not maintainable and this appeal must be allowed. As the debt secured by the hypothecation of moveable pro­perties is itself a property and the present transfer is of such a debt, the transferee in his name cannot bring a suit for the recovery of the debt. In the result therefore, in our opinion the suit as framed is not maintainable and this appeal must be allowed. The decree of the court below is set aside. But as the appellant,, has lost on many points, the parties will bear their own costs. (14) DUTTA, J. : I agree Appeal allowed.