SUKH LAL AND ORS. versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 317 · Decided: 13-09-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
' 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUKH LAL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. 
September 13, 1966 
[K. N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT; JJ.j 
Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) A.ct, 1951 (70 of 1951), •· 2(6), 
(10)-Disp/aced debtor, who is-"p/ace of residence", meaning of. 
· 
The joint Hindu family, comprisi.11g of the appellants and some others, 
carried on business in groceries at Harunabad, now in Pakistan. 
The 
respondent-Bank had advanced loans to the business. 
On the setting up 
of the Dominions of India and Pakistan, riots broke out in Harunabad, 
and the business was closed and the members of the family residing at 
Harunabad migrated to India. 
The Bank filed a suit against all the 
members of the family fur the amount due. The members then applied 
to the Tribunal set up under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) 
Act, 1951 and the Bank's suit was also transferred to the Tribunal. The 
Tribunal held that all members of the family were displaeed debtors and 
on appeal, the High Court held that the appellants were not displaced 
debtors. 
HELD : One of the appellants had established his status as a displaced 
debtor. 
For a person to be a displaced debtor under the Act it is not necessary 
that he. must have before migration to India a place of residence only in 
the territory which later was included in Pakistan, and bad no place of 
residence in the territory which is now in India. The words of the defi-
nition in s. 2(10) read with s. 2(6) are sufficiently wide to include the 
cue of a person who had a place of R&idepce in India as well as a place 
of residence in an area now forming pan Of Pakistan, provided that such 
a pen;on was displaced from the latter residerice because of the setting 
up of two domiruons . or on account of civil disturbances or fear of such 
d1Sturbances. [321 F; G] 
The expression 'place of residence' connotes . a place where a penon 
has bis dwellillg house which need not necessarily be permanent or ex-
clusive. [321 DJ 
The 'displacementl contemplated by the Act is the 'displacement' of the 
person and not of the business. [323 El 
. 
Civn. APPELLATE JURJSDICilON : Civil Appeals Nos. 582-583 
of 1964. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated July 21, J!/60 
of the Punjab High Court in R. F. A. Nos. 7 and 8of1954. 
A. K. ·sen, Uma Mehta and S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, 
for the appellants (in both the appeals). 
H. L. Anand and K. Baldev Mehta, for the respondent No. I. 
'rhe Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J.-Sukh Lal, Karam Chand, Sohan Lal and Prabh 
Dayal are four brothers and they with their sons constituted joint 
3!8 
SUPREME COVRT 
REPORTS 
[1'67] I S.C.R. 
Hindu family. Sukh Lal has two sons 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 "Pan ju 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 de-
posited as security with tbe Bank. On the setting up of the Domi-
nions 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 
on 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 Rs. 23,418/12/- being the balance 
due at the foot of the accounts of Sohan Lal Shiv Dayal. 
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 debt9rs 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 wit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.