Brodhurst and Duthoit, JJ.:— The Rs. 1,080 was in no sense a debt due by the Company to Kelly, but was a gift bestowed from motives of compassion. It has however, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, that from that moment when sanction to pay the money reaches. Allahabad, the money was at his client's disposal; that his ??? could have compelled the Paymaster to pay the money to him and ??? the issue of the order to pay was equivalent to payment of the money.
There is we think, no force in these contentions. The bestowal of the gratuity was a gift of moveable property. Its date is subasquent to the 1st July, 1882, and it was not evidenced by a registered instrument. It could therefore only be effected by actuail delivery. The receipt of the order to pay is not equivalent to delivery to Kelly, for Kelly was not personally put into possession of the money, nor had the Paymaster authority from Kelly to hold the money on his behalf. As, therefore, there had been no such delivery s. 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, and s. 90 of the Contract Act as completed the transfer—vested the property—the money was not at Keily's disposal, and he could not have enforced payment of it. The appeal fails, and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.