- (1.) Sukh Lal, Karam Chand, Sohan Lal and Prabh Dayal are four brothers and they with their sons constitute joint Hindu family. Sukh Lal has two sons and Nand Lal and Hardwari Lal and Karam Chand has a son Shiv Dayal. The family carried on business in groceries at Ganganagar in the former Bikaner State and at Fazilka in the Province of Punjab, in the name and style of "Panju Mal Tilok Chand". A branch of the business was started in or about 1930 at Harunabad in the former State of Bahawalpur. The name of that business was later changed to Sohan Lal Shiv Dayal. In September 1946 two cash credit accounts were opened by Sukh Lal with the Imperial Bank of India, and certain commodities of Sohan Lal Shiv Dayal were deposited as security with the Bank. On the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan there were riots in Harunabad and a large quantity of the goods pledged with the Bank by Sohan Lal Shiv Dayal was looted The business was then closed, and the members of the family who were residing at Harunabad migrated of ' August 19. 1947 to Fazilka. The Bank sold the goods which were saved, and instituted suit No. 198 of 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Fazilka against the members of the joint family for a decree for Rupees 23,418-12-0 being the balance due at the foot of the accounts of Sohan Lal Shiv Dayal.
(2.) The members of the joint family then applied to the Tribunal set up under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act 70 of 1951 for adjustment of their debts due to the Bank and to other creditors. It was their case that they were displaced debtors and since the branch at Harunabad was closed after the partition of India, the debts due by them were liable to be adjusted under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act 70 of 1951. The Suit filed by the Bank was transferred to the Tribunal and was consolidated for trial with the petition under S. .5 of Act 70 of 1951. The Tribunal held that all the members of the family were residing and carrying on business and owning property both residential and agricultural at Harunabad and as they left Harunabad after March 1, 1947 due to civil disturbances and were at the date of the suit and thereafter residing at Ganganagar, they were displaced debtors. The Tribunal further held that under S. 17 (b) of Act 70 of 1951 the Bank was not entitled to recover from the debtors the balance of the debt for which the goods pledged were sold by the Bank. Accordingly the Tribunal allowed the application under S. 5 of Act 70 of 1951 and declared that nothing was due by the applicants to the Bank in respect of the liability under the two accounts. The suit filed by the Bank was also dismissed by the Civil Court. Against the orders passed in the petition under S. 5 of Act 70 of 1951 and the decree in Suit No. 198 of 1950 two appeals were preferred to the High Court of Punjab. The High Court held on a review of the evidence that four members of the family: Nand Lal and Hardwari Lal sons of Sukh Lal, Shiv Dayal son of Karam Chand and Sohan Lal son of Tilok Chand were displaced debtors since they were actually residing and carrying on business at Harunabad immediately before the partition of India and their liability to the Bank stood extinguished, but the other members of the family. Sukh Lal. Karam Chand and Prabh Dayal who were not residing in Harunabad immediately before the partition were not displaced debtors. The High Court according modified the decree in the suit and the order passed in the petition under S. 5 of Act 70 of 1951, and declared that three members of the family, Sukh Lal, Karam Chand and Prabh Dayal were liable to satisfy the debt due to the Bank for their proportionate share under S. 22 of the Act, and remanded the proceedings for determination of their "final liability,' in accordance with the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act 70 of 1951.
(3.) The relevant provisions of Act 70 of l95l are briefly these: S. 2(10) defines a 'displaced person' as meaning "any person, who, on account of the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan, or on account of civil disturbance or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of West Pakistan, has, after the 1st day of March, 1947, left, or been displaced from, his place of residence in such area and who has been subsequently residing in India, and includes any person who is resident in any place now forming part of India and who for that reason is unable or has been rendered unable to manage, supervise or control any immovable property belonging to him in West Pakistan, but does not include a banking company". Section 2 (9) defines a 'displaced debtors, as meaning a displaced person from whom a debt is due or is being claimed". The expression debt is defined in Cl. (6) of S. 2. The materia1 part of the definition reads: "'debt' means any pecuniary liability, whether payable presently or in future, or under a decree or order of a civil or revenue Court or otherwise, or whether ascertained or to be ascertained, which- (a) in the case of a displaced person who has left or been displaced from his place of residence in any area now forming art of West Pakistan, was incurred before came to reside in any area now forming part of India; (b) in the case of a displaced person who, before and after the 15th day of August 1947, has been residing in any area now forming part of India' was incurred before the said date on the security of any immovable property situate in the territories now forming part of West Pakistan Provided * * * (c) * * * *".;