BADRI DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's first appeal against a Judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, lucknow, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 35,575/-from the defendants together with costs and interest, pendente lite and future, as the Court may deem just.

(2.) The plaintiff in the suit was Badri Das appellant, who held canteens as an Army contractor at Jheium, Mona and Sargodha before the partition of India, which took place with effect from the 15th August, 1947. similarly Messrs. K. S. Haji S. Abdullah and Brothers also held canteen contracts at Lucknow, Allahabad and Faizabad in U. P. before the partition. After the partition Messrs. K. S. Haji S. Abdullah and Brothers wanted to migrate to Pakistan. Badri Das found it difficult to carry on his business in Pakistan due to the disturbances there. Hence he also wanted to migrate to India. In this situation, the plaintiff and Messrs. K. S. Haji S. Abdullah and Brothers agreed to exchange their respective business as Army contractors in India and Pakistan. The oral agreement between the two parties appears to hare been stipulated about the month of September, 194/-This agreement was, however, reduced to writing by the parties on the 26th October, 1947. This written agreement is Ex. 8 in the present case. In this agreement Messrs. Ch. Badri Dass and Sons, Station Contractors Jheium, are party No. 1, and Messrs. K. S. Haji S. Abdullah and Brothers, Station Contractors, Lucknow, Allahabad and faizabad, are party No. 2. The terms of the said agreement are as follows:-

(3.) Both the defendants filed a joint written statement. On their behalf, it was admitted that a certificate for the realisation of Income-tax dues from Messrs. K. 5. Haji S. Abdullah and Brothers was issued by the income-tax authorities, and the goods and stores in question were attached for the realisation of the said dues on the 15th November, 1947. Their case was that the attachment in question was a valid attachment, as the goods in question belonged to the assessee Messrs. K. S. Haji S. Abdullan and Brothers, and were the property of the said assessee at the time of the said attachment. It was also pleaded on their behalf that the alleged transfer of goods in favour of the plaintiff was fraudulent and, therefore, bad in law. The defendants further pleaded that the plaintiff being the successor of Messrs. K.S. Haji S. Abdullah and Brothers was liable for the income-tax dues of his predecessor-in-interest. In any case, the plaintiff's suit was barred by estoppel. So far as defendant No. 1 was concerned, it was further pleaded on its behalf that the suit was not maintainable against it, as no cause of action was disclosed in respect of the claim against the Union of India through the Secretary-in-charge, Defence Department of the Central Government, New Delhi.