G. MEHROTRA, J. : This is plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,931/11/- against one Rajendra Chandra Dey, defendant No. 1 and the State of Assam defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant No. 1 - Rajendra Chandra Dey, who is a contractor under the Forest Department at Tezpur, entered into a financial arrange­ment with the Tezpur Branch of the plaintiff-bank for advancing him money on overdrafts against his bills on the Forest Department and to collect which, he gave a sole power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff-bank by an irrevocable Power of Attorney. He surrendered all his rights to receive any payment of any bill direct from the said department so long as he remained indebted to the plaintiff bank. Un­der this agreement, the bank granted accommodation to the defendant No. 1 by starting a cash credit ac­count on 17th April, 1945. The power of attorney was forwarded to the Divisional Forest Officer, Tez­pur who received it on the 20th April, 1945. There were other documents executed by the defendant No. 1 the contractor, in favour of the bank, but they are not relevant to the present appeal. (2) The defendant No. 1, although he owed money to the bank, received payment of the bills to the tune of Rs. 16000/- and odd from the Divi­sional Forest Officer, Tezpur directly. The bank protested of this conduct of the defendant No. 1 and he deposited a sum of Rs. 9025/- only. The balance of Rs. 7000/- was not paid by him. Ac­cording to the accounts, filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint, the defendant No. 1, the con­tractor, owed to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 14,931/ 11/- and the claim was made for the said amount against defendant No. 1 and a joint and several decree against bath the defendants was claimed in respect of Rs. 7000/- out of the above amount. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff ag­ainst defendant No. 1, but dismissed it against the State of Assam in respect of the sum of Rs. 7000/-and the present appeal has been filed by the plain­tiff against the State of Assam in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 7000/-. 7000/- out of the above amount. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff ag­ainst defendant No. 1, but dismissed it against the State of Assam in respect of the sum of Rs. 7000/-and the present appeal has been filed by the plain­tiff against the State of Assam in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 7000/-. (3) The main contention raised in this appeal is that under the irrevocable power of attorney, the contractor defendant No. 1 had transferred all his rights to receive the amounts of the bills to the bank. That document creates a charge in favour of the bank and that the bank was entitled to sue for the recovery of the amount, paid by the depart­ment to the contractor directly with the knowledge of the power of attorney. Reliance was placed on section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act which provides as follows: "The transfer of an actionable claim whether with or without consideration shall be effected only by the execution of an instrument in writing sign­ed by the transferor or his duly authorised agent, .... shall be complete & effectual upon the execution of such instrument, and thereupon all the rights and remedies of the transferor, whether by way of da­mages or otherwise, shall vest in the transferee, whether such notice of the transfer as in hereinafter provided be given or not: Provided that every dealing with the debt or other actionable claim by the debtor or other per­son from or against whom the transferor would, but for such instrument of transfer as aforesaid, have been entitled to recover or enforce such debt or other actionable claim, shall (save where the deb­tor or other person is a party to the transfer or has received express notice thereof and hereinafter pro­vided) be valid as against such transfer''. (4) It is contended that the right to receive the amount of the bills was an actionable claim which has been transferred under the irrevocable power of attorney and the bank, as the transferee, is en­titled to claim the amount of the bill as against the Govt. which has been wrongly paid by the depart­ment with the knowledge of the said power of at­torney to the contractor. which has been wrongly paid by the depart­ment with the knowledge of the said power of at­torney to the contractor. Actionable claim has been defined under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act as follows: "Actionable claim means 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 existed, accruing, conditional or contingent''. (5) The terms of the power of attorney will have to be examined in order to ascertain whether it amounts to the transfer of any debt. The power of .attorney was executed on the 21st March, 1945. The opening paragraph of the document is as follows: "Whereas I having required funds for the purpose of carrying on my aforesaid contract works under the Divisional Forest Officer, Government, Railway, Municipal and Local Boards, M. E. S., Joint Stock Companies, Firms and individuals and more special­ly for the supply works under the Divisional Forest Officer, Darrang, Tezpur, approached M/S Bank of the East (1927), Ltd., Tezpur hereinafter referred to as the said 'Bank' to lend and advance unto me for the purpose of my said present work with the Divisional Forest Officer, Tezpur, and where­as the said Bank has agreed to lend and advance me funds in my said contract or contracts on my agreeing to execute an irrevocable General Power of Attorney, in favour of the said Bank and thereby completely surrendering my right of receiving any payment or my dues from the said authorities, so long the said Power of Attorney shall remain in force, on the terms and in the manner hereinafter mentioned''. Clause 1 of the conditions gives power to the Bank to demand 'Or to receive from any person or persons, Railway authorities, Govt. departments, Municipal and Local Boards, all and any money or monies now or hereinafter to be due or payable to the defen­dant No. 1 in his said business or any account what­soever upon presentation of bills thereof. Clause 1 of the conditions gives power to the Bank to demand 'Or to receive from any person or persons, Railway authorities, Govt. departments, Municipal and Local Boards, all and any money or monies now or hereinafter to be due or payable to the defen­dant No. 1 in his said business or any account what­soever upon presentation of bills thereof. Clause 8 which is another relevant condition is as follows: "And I authorise and direct the said bank to credit to my account which shall come to its hands by virtue of these hereinafter and herein contained or so much thereof as shall remain after paying out at the first instance the costs and charges and ex­penses incurred by it in the exercise of any of the powers or authorities herein contained and als3 other expenses for my said business and the inte­rests aid commissions a8d claims of and due to the said bank''. Clause 10 reads as follows: "In consideration of the advance or advances, to be made to me, I declare the Power of Attorney hereby conferred, to be irrevocable until it is formal­ly revoked by me with one month's notice to the said bank and with the previous consent of the said bank and further I shall not be entitled to exercise my right of revocation of the Power of Attorney hereby conferred until the claim of the said bank for interests, commissions, incidental charges or ad­vances aforesaid is paid in full''. (6) A perusal of this document clearly points out 'that it is only an authority given to the bank to receive payments from the department concerned of the amounts, if and when they become due to the1 contractor. It neither creates a charge nor it is a I transfer of any debt due to the contractor from the; Government and the provisions of section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act are therefore not attracted. There are no words in the opening clause of the deed by which it can be inferred that the bills have been given as a security for the ad­vances made by the bank to the contractor. There are no words indicating the transfer of the debt to the bank. There are no words in the opening clause of the deed by which it can be inferred that the bills have been given as a security for the ad­vances made by the bank to the contractor. There are no words indicating the transfer of the debt to the bank. The subsequent clauses of the deed also clearly show that the amounts of the bills, when reali­sed by the bank, had to be credited to the accounts of the contractor and after having been credited to the accounts of the contractor it obviously follows, they went towards the discharge of the liability of the bank. But the money realised still remained the money of the contractor and it cannot be said that there was any transfer of the debt to the bank by the contractor under this document. (7) Strong reliance has been placed on the words used by the contractor in the document that "All rights to realise the bills have been surrendered in favour of the bank". As we have already point­ed out, reading the document as a whole, it was only an authority to the bank to receive payments of the bills and credit it to the contractor's overdraft account. There was no transfer of any debt by the contractor to the bank. Reliance was then placed on the case of Alkash Ali Khalifa v. Nath Bank Ltd. AIR 1951 Assam 56 (A). In that case the contrac­tor had made arrangements with the bank for ad­vances of money for carrying on his contract busi­ness, on the security of his contracts and supplies to the Military and also with the bills to be endorsed in favour of the bank for accounting and collection. These advances were to be made by the bank to the contractor on his executing an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the said bank. The irrevocable power of attorney was execut­ed. Defendant No. 1 got a money decree against the contractor and in execution of his decree, certain bills which were due to the contractor from the military department were attached. An objection was preferred by the bank which was rejected. The bank then instituted a suit contending that the bills were not liable to attachment as they had been hypothecated to the Bank which had a prior charge over them. An objection was preferred by the bank which was rejected. The bank then instituted a suit contending that the bills were not liable to attachment as they had been hypothecated to the Bank which had a prior charge over them. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the decision was affirmed by this Court in ap­peal. It was held by a Bench of this Court that a transaction by which money due or to become due tin future was hypothecated or a charge created on it amounted to a transfer of an actionable claim with­in the meaning of Sec. 130, and that such a transfer must be in writing. A power of attorney which formed the basis of the bank's claim was such a writ­ing as required by Sec. 130. A power of attorney was executed in favour of the bank and the bank had to make the advances on the security of the bills that were to accrue due to the defendant, it got the necessary authority for collection of the bills which served the purpose of a writing under sec. 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. (8) That was a dispute between the attaching creditor and the bank. It was not a case where the bank had brought a suit for the recovery of the amount against the third party debtor on the ground that the power of attorney had transferred the right to the bank which the bank could enforce against the debtor. It was only held in that case that the bank had a prior charge and had a preferential claim over the attaching creditor. Moreover the terms of the document were different from the present one. The power of attorney in that case had expressly provided that the advances were to be made on the security of contracts and supplies to the military and also bills drawn in favour of the bank and/or against drawn up bills to be endors­ed in favour of the bank as agreed upon by the irrevocable power of attorney with the said terms provided thereunder. Reference may also be made to the case of this court reported in Union of India v. Bank of East Ltd., AIR 1954 Assam 23 (B). Reference may also be made to the case of this court reported in Union of India v. Bank of East Ltd., AIR 1954 Assam 23 (B). The facts of that case were that an appeal had been fil­ed in this court against fie decree of the learned Subordinate Judge in a suit brought against the Union of India by the United Bank of India for the recovery of a certain amount of money due un­der bills to a contractor from the Govt. which had been paid to the contractor directly inspite of a power of attorney in favour of the bank. The trial court had decreed the suit and on appeal, this court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the trial court. On the considera­tion of the document, the Bench came to the con­clusion that no charge was created Or assignment made in favour of the Bank with respect to the bill or bills and there was therefore no legal obligation on the part of the military authorities or the Govt. to pay up the sums covered by the bills once again to the bank where the money had been paid to the contractor lawfully. One of the learned Judges who was a member of this Bench was also a party to the earlier decision reported in AIR 1951 Assam 56 (A). The earlier case was distinguished on the ground that the words of the document in that case clearly created a charge as the bills were given as security for the payment of the overdraft account. (9) Each case will have to be decided on the interpretation of the document and in our opinion, there is no substance in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the power of attorney creates any charge against the bank or is an assignment of right to collect the money in favour of the bank. The effect of the power of attorney was not tl at if the money was paid by the department concerned to the contractor directly, it would be the liability of the department to pay it again to the Bank. Under the document, if the money had been paid by the Govt. to the bank, it would have been a valid discharge of the Govern­ment's liability to the contractor. Under the document, if the money had been paid by the Govt. to the bank, it would have been a valid discharge of the Govern­ment's liability to the contractor. (10) In the case of Balaram Panda v. Gopinath Misra, AIR 1954 Orissa 44 (C),, it was held that an as­signment of an actionable claim must conform strictly to the provisions of Sec. 130 and to effectuate an assignment, there must be words of transfer in the instrument. That was a case where it was contended that by a letter an insurance agent had transferred his interest in the commission to his Chief Agent, On the construction of the letter, it was held that it was not a transfer of the interest of the com­mission of the insurance agent to his chief agent. (11) In the case of Dharam Chand Bold v. Mouji Shahu, 16 Ind Gas 440 (Cal) (D), it was held by the Calcutta High Court that a deed of release by a partner in favour of another partner giving up his claim to partnership business and de­claring that henceforth the business will be conducted by the other partner was not a transfer in favour of the other partner and no title passed to him. (12) It was also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that under Sec. 130, mere execution of the deed of transfer by itself does not prohibit the debtor from dealing with the debt un­less it is proved that he had notice of assignment in accordance with the provisions of sec. 131 of the Transfer of Property Act. Although the debtor is no party to the transfer, section 130 provides an ex­ception and is to be strictly complied with. Sec. 131 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that "Every notice of transfer of an actionable claim shall be in writing, signed by the transferor or his agent duly authorised in this behalf, or, in case the trans­feror refuses to sign, by the transferee or his agent, and shall state the name and address of the trans­feree." It is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of Sec. 131 were not strictly complied with in this case. The trial court has also found that 'the provisions have not been strictly complied with. The trial court has also found that 'the provisions have not been strictly complied with. In this view of the matter also, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief and in the absence of any such notice the debtor was competent under the proviso to Sec. 130 to deal with the debt. (13) In the result, therefore, we see no force in this appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs to the defendant respondent, the State of Assam. (14) SARJOO PROSAD C. J.: I agree. V. B. B. Appeal dismissed.