GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. RAJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Hissar, dated August 17, 1965.

(2.) Briefly the case of the plaintiffs was that Gurhachan Singh, plaintiff, was a big landowner. The tenants made applications for the purchase of land against him, under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Those applications were allowed in favour of the tenants. Gurbachan Singh had two wives, namely, Basant Kaur and Bajinder Kaur. From Basant Kaur, he had a son, Rajinder Singh and from Bajinder Kaur, he had another son, Jagrup Singh. He had also three daughters from Rajinder Kaur. In the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act, Gurbachan Singh made an application before the Assistant Collector on July 9, 1958, to the effect that the amount of compensation deposited by the tenants be paid to Rajinder Kaur in her lifetime and after her death, to Jagrup Singh, her son. He also stated that he had no concern with the amount of instalments and that he would not be competent to revoke the said commitment. The Assistant Collector recorded the statement of Gurbachan Singh on the same day and passed an order to that effect. Subsequently, he made an application on January 28, 1962, in which he prayed that the amount of instalments be paid to him. The Assistant Collector rejected the application on August 2, 1963, and directed him to file a regular suit in the Civil Court to get relief. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration to the effect that Gurbachan Singh was entitled to withdraw the instalments and that the order passed by the Assistant Collector on his application was null and void. They also prayed that the defendants be restrained from realising amount of instalments from the Court of the Assistant Collector. The suit was contested by the defendants, inter alia, on the ground that it was not within limitation, that Gurbachan Singh could not back out from the commitment made by him on July 9, 1958, and that the order of the Assistant Collector was valid and binding on him. The other pleas are not relevant for the decision of the appeal. The trial Court held that the amount of instalments ordered to be given to the defendants amounted to gift and it could be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the money, and that no right had been vested in the defendants, since neither of the aforesaid conditions had been fulfilled. It also held that the order of the Assistant Collector was not binding on the plaintiffs. On the point of limitation, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit was within time. It consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The defendants went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Hissar, who held that the instalments could be given to the defendants by virtue of the application and the order of the Assistant Collector was valid. He, therefore, accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have come up in second appeal to this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, Gurbachan Singh has died. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that on his death, the appeal does not abate as his legal representatives are already on the record.

(3.) The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the amount required to be deposited by the tenants with the Assistant Collector, is not covered by the definition of 'actionable claim' and, therefore, the same could not be transferred to the respondents by an application in writing by Gurbachan Singh deceased.