STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GIANI BIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the decision of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff is the State of Punjab and the defendants are Giani Sir Singh and his wife Smt. Basant Gaur. In an annual excise auction regarding village Pakhowal, district Luhiana, for the retail vend of country liquor held for the year 1944-45, Bir Singh was the highest bidder and, accordingly, secured the licence at the annual licence fee of Rs. 10,900. The terms and conditions were those that had been promulgated at the time of the auction. The licence fee had to be deposited in instalments. Suffice it to say that the defendant paid only Rs. 2,728. This left Rs. 8,172 due on account of the licence fee. As this amount was not paid, various demands were made by the Excise Department and, ultimately, on the 5th of March 1945 it was decided to terminate his licence and reauction the vend. The vend was reauctioned on that very day for a sum of Rs. 410. This resulted in a net loss of Rs 7,762 to the plaintiff. Steps were taken to recover this amount as arrears of land revenue but with no effect. The defendant also made various representations to the Deputy Commissioner Ludhiana, praying that he may be excused from making payment of the arrears, but those representations were rejected. Even warrants of recovery were issued against the defendant, but the arrears could not be recovered. On the 6th of June 1947 the defendant made an oral gift to his wife (defendant No. 2), but, later on, on the 29th July 1947 he produced a registered deed of gift in favour of his wife. On the 14th of January 1948, when the question of sanctioning mutation on the basis of the registered gift deed was before the Tehsildar, a report was received by him from the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Ludhiana, that a sum of Rs. 7,662 was due on account of the liquor licence fee for the year 1944-45, and that so long this amount was not paid, the mutation be not sanctioned Accordingly, the mutation proceedings were adjourned by the Tehsildar. The matter was then placed before the Tehsildar on the 3rd of May 1951 and the mutation was sanctioned on that date. While sanctioning the mutation, the Tehsildar made the following observations: -

(2.) THE present suit was filed on the 9th of February 1959, though the plaint bears the date of 2nd February 1959 The suit is for a declaration to the effect that the gift made by defendant 1 to defendant 2 of the property in suit, vide gift-deed dated the 29th July 1947, was done by defendant 1 with a view to delay and defeat his creditors and is, therefore, not binding on the creditors of defendant 1. In the body of the plaint -- in paragraphs 9 to 12 two alternative stands were taken --

(3.) WHETHER the defendant No. 1 committed am breach of contract as alleged by the plaintiff?