1,25,000 was taken on July 12, 1947 and there was a Promissory Note in respect thereof dated June 19, 1947.
Against the decision of the trial Judge the Bank preferred Appeal No.
The liability of the appellant being 1/3rd, the trial Judge held him liable for Rs.
1,06,281 12 11 Item No.
The Bank also alleged that the value of the assets of the appellant was number companyrectly shown.
1,33,655/11/ and as on April 22, 1950 the amount due was Rs.
In July 1949 the appellant took a loan of Rs.
He further alleged that the additional security on property No.
Since the amounts were due to the Karachi Branch, these were companyverted into Pakistan rupees and repatriated.
G and the personal security of himself and his wife.
70,008 10 0 there being two joint debtors.
Upon these rival companytentions of the parties the trial companyrt held that the appellant was a displaced person, that he was entitled to dispute the amount due even though acknowledgements were signed, that the debts were liable to be adjusted as joint debts and apportioned between the debtors, that the insurance policies were moveable properties for the purpose of s. 22 of the said Act but number for the purpose of s. 17 and that the appellant was entitled to a credit of Rs.
During the hearing of the application the appellant only pressed the application against the Bank and number against his other creditors.
In early 1948 this Branch was closed and so the account was transferred to the Karachi Branch.
35,000 to the Bank.
During his absence the Pakistan Government declared him to be an evacuee.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated November 16, 1962 of the Bombay High Court in Cross Appeals Nos.
The appellant, Bulchand Chandiram was a citizen of Pakistan and had companye to India on June 6, 1950 on a temporary permit.
1,07,969/ 15/ 11 Item No.
The appellant claimed that the Bank was also number entitled to claim interest after August 15, 1947.
690 of 1967.
1,35,735/13/ Item No.
In 1948 the appellant had executed absolute assignment in respect of all the policies in favour of the Bank.
1.,22,160/2/11 and in the loan account Rs.
On July 22, 1952 the appellant made an,application under s. 5 of the Displaced Persons Debts Adjustment Act, 1951 Act No.
1,25,000 from the Hyderabad Branch on the security of properties mentioned in Sch.
Between March and April 1947 properties 4 and 5 were sold and the appellant paid Rs.
LXX of 1951 , hereinafter referred to as the said Act for adjustment of his debts against several creditors.
It admitted the realisation of Rs.
1,52,622/12/ with interest at one per cent over the Bank rate.
The High Court held that on June 30, 1948 there was due to the Bank in the Cash Credit Account a sum of Rs.
According to the Bank the properties of the appellant left in Pakistan were worth only Rs 4,00,000.
3 6,490/ 11 11.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
6 in the Schedule was obtained by the Bank by undue influence and companyrcion and hence the security to that extent was illegal and inoperative.
T. Desai, Bhuvnesh Kumari, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent.
C. Chagla and B. R. Agarwala, for the appellant.
It was companytended for the Bank that if the appellant was held entitled to the protection of the said Act the Bank chose to act under s. 16 of the said Act to retain the security and win also be entitled to full amount of the insurance policies.
95,788/ from immoveable properties.
The trial Judge accordingly held as below in respect of the Cash Credit Account Rs.
756 and 791 of 1057.
17,126/9/4 in respect of the amount realised on the maturity of the insurance policies.
Regarding the question of apportionment the High Court came to the companyclusion, after examining the evidence, that the appellant was alone liable for the debts and numberquestion therefore arose of apportionment of liability.
The appellant alleged that the Bank had realised two of the in surance policies and had recovered some other amounts.
13,684/ 2/11 was recoverable out of life policies and Rs.
The Bank companytested the application on several grounds.
23,700 on January 22, 1951 and July 9, 1952.
a. P. Amount due as principal up to 10th December 1951 89,601 11 11 Interest up to 10th December 1951 20,490 4 0 Expenses 240 13 0 1,10,332 12 11 Less rent realised and amount of reversed entries 860 10 0 1,09,472 2 11 On apportionment the trial Judge held that a sum of Rs.
On May 4, 1945 the appellant had opened an account with the Bank ,of India Hyderabad Sind Branch called the Cash Credit Account.
36 and on April 22, 1950 the amount due was Rs.
Bombay High Court.
In December, 1950 he was granted a Domicile Certificate and since then he has been residing in Bombay.
In, this account on December 31, 1949 the amount due was Rs.
79,000 and mortgage of immoveable properties 1 to 5 in Sch.
The Bank companytended that on June 30, 1952 the amount due in respect of the Cash Credit Account was Rs.
In respect of the loan account the trial Judge held as follows Rs.
756 and 791 of 1957.
In this account on December 31, 1949 the amount due to the Bank was Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated November 16, 1962 in Cross Appeals Nos.
It was also said that the Bank had received the rent of the properties from Pakistan after they were declared evacuee properties.
The account was secured by an assignment of life insurance policies on the appellants life of about RS.
24,700 on the maturity of the policies and stated that it had credited the appellant with the companyverted value in Pakistan rupees since the amount was transferred to Karachi when the Bank received the assent of the Controller of Foreign Exchange.
791 of 1957 in the.
a. P. The amount due in that account up to 10th December 1951 1,20,704 11 0 Interest up to 10th December 1951 20,896 0 0 Bxpenses 38 6 0 1,41,639 3 0 Less rent received 1,621 15 0 1,40,017 4 0 The trial Judge held that the appellant was liable for Rs.
756 of 1957 and the appellant Bulchand Chandiram preferred Appeal No.
1,09,000/ and the High Court was number entitled to go behind that date.
1,02,902/7/11 and after the said date there were renewals only or companyfirmations of liability and there was a Promissory Note in respect of the said liability dated November 18, 1947 to the extent of Rs.
