ASUDA SINGH Vs. R B PAHLAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Asuda Singh, defendant No. 3 in the suit, (since deceased, and now represented by his legal representatives) filed this regular first appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial' court rejecting the plaint of an interpleader suit filed by Union of India and in the alternative holding that defandant No. 1, R. B. Pahlaj Singh alone was entitled to receive the amount mentioned in the plaint and held by Union of India.

(2.) It appears that a sum of Rs. 74,878/5/9 was received by transfer by Union of India from the Government of Pakistan on partition of the sub-continent, being the amount due on account of certain works executed in pursuance of certain contracts entered into by the Government of undivided India. The appellant herein registered a claim for l/3rd of this amount with the Controller General of Defence Accounts with the plea that this amount was payable to the firm. M/s. R. B. Pahlaj Singh Lulla (hereinafter called "the firm") of which the appellant and the other two defendants to the suit, R.B. Pahlaj Singh Lulla (defendant No. 1 ) and Seth Ram Singh Chiman Singh Lulla (defendant p. No. 2) were partners with equal shares. Defendant No. 2 also registered a similar claim on the same basis while defendant No. 1, R. B. Pahlaj Singh Lulla claimed the full amount to be payable to him solely on the ground that the works had been executed by him alone. In September, 1961 Union of India filed the interpleader suit which has led to this appeal staling that it had no interest in the amount received by transfer and as disputes between the defendants to the suit were pending and as the firm of which defendants 2 and 3 claimed to be partners had been dissolved, the defendants be required to interplead and the Union of India be discharged from all liabilities to the defendants relating to the said amount. Defendants 2 and 3 filed separate written statements and set up their respective claims for the l/3rd share each in the total amount. Their case in substance in terms of the written statements was that the contracts in question were taken by the firm R. B. Pahlaj Singh L. Lulla and even if it be found that the contracts were taken in the individual name of R. B. Pahlaj Singh L. Lulla they were taken for and on behalf of and executed by the firm in which they were partners with l/3rd share each. Defendant No. 1 in his written-statement contended that the contracts in question were in his personal and individual name and that the whole amount was payable to him. He maintained that the privity of contract in respect of the contracts was solely between the Government of undivided India and him, and defendants 2 and 3 had no interest in the amount received by Union of India from Pakistan Government. He denied that the partnership alleged by defendants 2 and 3 ever came into existence and that the contracts were executed by the alleged firm and that the Union of India illegally withheld this amount in spite of full knowledge that it was defendant No. 1 alone who was entitled to it. Union of India, he maintained had no "cause of auction" to file the interpleader suit. It was further pleaded that Union had colluded with defendants 2 and 3 and the interpleader suit being collusive was not maintainable. On the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues:

(3.) Union of India examined Public Witness 1, Shri D. P. Ghosh, Supervisor, Audit Claim Section, Office of Controller General of Defence Accounts, who stated that the Union had received two fixed bank deposit receipts worth Rs. 25,801/4/9 and Rs. 2000 in the name of Rai Bahadur Pahlaj Singh L. Lulla, defendant No. 1 and also certain other amounts. He stated that' the two receipts had been filed in court and the further amounts which had been received by the Union from Pakistan Government had also been deposited in court, that the Union had no interest in these monies and that the amount so received was being claimed by defendants 1, 2 and 3 adversely to each other and had also served notices for recovery of the share of the amount on Union of India. He stated that the suit of the Union of India was bona fide and that the Union had no intention to help any of the contesting defendants. Union of India also produced certain admitted documents in support of its contentions. Defendants 2 and 3 produced no evidence.