UNION OF INDIA Vs. TARA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal arising out of an order passed by Shri Chetan Dass Jain, Senior Sub-Judge, acting as a Tribunal under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act (Act No. 70 of 1951)--hereinafter referred to as the Act, in an application under S. 13 of the Act against the Union of India. This appeal came up for hearing before Bishan Narain J. on 18-9-1956, and in view of the importance of the questions involved, it was referred to a Division Bench for decision.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are short and simple. Amolak Ram Sethi was carrying on business of a fruit merchant as sole proprietor under the name and style of Laxmi Fruit Agency at Jammu Tawi (Kashmir) and Rawalpindi (now Pakistan). He booked three consignments of fruits and vegetables from Jammu Tawi to Delhi. One of these consignments the consignment in dispute in this appeal was booked on 12-8-1947, and the remaining two, not in dispute in this appeal, were booked on 27-8-1947. The goods never reached the destination and were neither delivered to the consignee nor to the consignor. Amolak Ram died in communal riots in Rawalpindi in September, 1947. His widow Smt. Tara Rani and his sons filed the application, which has given rise to this appeal under S. 13 of the Act. The claim made in this application related to the three consignments and was made against the Union of India for a sum of Rs. 24,206-3-0. A number of preliminary objections were raised to this petition, and in this appeal only those out of them have been dealt with which were pressed by the learned counsel for the Union of India. On the merits, the principal contentions raised related to the liability of the Union of India and the quantum of that liability. All the preliminary objections were rejected by the Tribunal on 2-5-1953. On merits, the decision was given on 7-12-1953. The claim of the petitioners with regard to the two consignments of 27-8-1947 was rejected, but a decree was passed for the claim relating to the consignment dated 12-8-1947. Against this decision, the present appeal was filed by the Union of India and on a reference by Bishan Narain J. it has come up for hearing before us.

(3.) At this stage, it will be proper to set out the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Union: