Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J. : This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated November 16, 1962 in Cross Appeals Nos. 756 and 791 of 1957.

2. The appellant, Bulchand Chandiram was a citizen of Pakistan and had come to India on June 6, 1950 on a temporary permit. During his absence the Pakistan Government declared him to be an evacuee. In December, 1950 he was granted a Domicile Certificate and since then he has been residing in Bombay. On May 4, 1945 the appellant had opened an account with the Bank of India (Hyderabad Sind Branch) called the Cash Credit Account. The account was secured by an assignment of life insurance policies on the appellant s life of about us. 79,000 and mortgage of immovable properties 1 to 5 in Schedule F Between March and April 1947 properties 4 and 5 were sold and the appellant paid Rs. 35,000 to the Bank. In this account on December 31, 1949 the amount due to the Bank was Rs. 1,06,281-12-11 (Item No. 36) and on April 22, 1950 the amount due was Rs. 1,07,969/15/11 (Item No. 44). In July 1949 the appellant took a loan of Rs. 1,25,000 from the Hyderabad Branch on the security of properties mentioned in Schedule G and the personal security of himself and his wife. In early 1948 this Branch was closed and so the account was transferred to the Karachi Branch. In this account on December 31, 1949 the amount due was Rs. 1,33,655/11/- and as on April 22, 1950 the amount due was Rs. 1,35,735/13/- (Item No. 45). On July 22, 1952 the appellant made an application under Section 5 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 (Act No LXX of 1951), hereinafter referred to as the "said Act" for adjustment of his debts against several creditors. During the hearing of the application the appellant only pressed the application against the Bank and not against his other creditors. The appellant alleged that the Bank had realised two of the insurance policies and had recovered some other amounts. It was also said that the Bank had received the rent of the properties from Pakistan after they were declared evacuee priorities. The appellant claimed that the Bank was also not entitled to claim interest after August 15, 1947. He further alleged that the additional security on property No. 6 in the Schedule was obtained by the Bank by undue influence and coercion and hence the security to that extent was illegal and inoperative. The Bank contested the application on several grounds. According to the Bank the properties of the appellant left in Pakistan were worth only Rs. 4,00,000. The Bank also alleged that the value of the assets of the appellant was not correctly shown. It admitted the realisation of Rs. 24,700 on the maturity of the policies and stated that it had credited the appellant with the converted value in Pakistan rupees since the amount was transferred to Karachi when the Bank received the assent of the Controller of Foreign Exchange. The Bank contended that on June 30, 1952 the amount due in respect of the Cash Credit Account was Rs. 1,22,160/ 2/11 and in the loan account Rs 1,52, 822/12/- with interest at one per cent, over the Bank rate. It was contended for the Bank that if the appellant was held entitled to the protection of the said Act the Bank chose to act under Section 16 of the said Act to retain the security and will also be entitled to full amount of the insurance policies. Upon these rival contentions of the parties the trial court held that the appellant was a displaced person, that he was entitled to dispute the amount due even though acknowledgments were signed, that the debts liable to be adjusted as joint debts and apportioned between the debtors, that the insurance policies were moveable properties for the purpose of Section 22 of the said Act but not for the purpose of Section 17 and that the appellant was entitled to a credit of Rs. 17,126/9/4 in respect of the amount realised on the maturity of the insurance policies. The trial Judge accordingl