The term "debt" as used in the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 , includes a claim to compensation for damage caused by the breach of a contract, and more particularly caused by the failure to discharge "an obligation resembling those created by contract".

S.B.Capoor, J.

1. The short question for decision in this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, which has been referred to the Full Bench by the learned Judges constituting the Letters Patent Bench, is whether a petition by a displaced person to be compensated in damages for the alleged loss of the goods pledged by him as security for loans advanced by a bank in a cash credit account is maintainable as relating to a "debt" under the Displaced Pet sons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 (Act No. LXX of 1951), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act.

2. The Act came into force in the State of Punjab on the 10th December. 1951. Under Section 13 of the Act, displaced creditors could file claims against persons who are not displaced debtors at any time within one year after the date of the coming into force of the Act in any local area. On the 9th December. 1952, Ram Lal appellant instituted an application before the Tribunal, constituted under the Act, at Jullundur under Section 13 of the Act alleging that he was a displaced person from Kasur, District Lahore, now in West Pakistan, and before the partition of the country had stocked 200 bales of cotton of the value of Rs. 30,000/- in a godown of the Central Bank of India Limited, the respondent in the case, at Raiwind, which godown was under the control of the branch of the bank at Kasur. It was asserted that the bales were lying in trust with the respondent bank and that the petitioner owed only a sum of Rs. 44/-. The petitioner had been demanding from the bank the price of cotton stocked but the bank had been evading to pay the same and the prayer was that a proper and reasonable relief be granted to the petitioner under the Act.

3. The respondent bank resisted the claim and in its written statement raised various preliminary objections, one of which was that the claim was not a "debt" as defined in the Act. It was asserted that the petitioner had a cash credit account with the Kasur Branch of the bank before the partition of the country and that 200 bales of cotton were pledged by the petitioner as security in this account. On the first August, 1947, the account of the petitioner disclosed a debit balance of Rs. 44/11/- exclusive of interest.

The value of the stock was alleged to be only Rs. 8,550/-. During the disturbances at the time of the partition of the country, the pledged stocks were lost for reasons beyond the control of the bank and had not been insured against all riot risks. It was pointed out that according to the terms of the pledge of goods agreement clause No. 10, the bank was not responsible for the quality, quantity and the safety of the goods and for all the reasons mentioned above, the bank was not liable to pay anything whatsoever to the applicant.

4. The petition went to trial on the following issues;

(1) Is the applicant a displaced person as defined in the Act ?

(2) Is the claim in suit a debt ?

(3) Is it within time ?

(4) What is the value of the bales pledged by the petitioner with the bank ?

(5) Did the goods disappear owing to the communal disturbances as alleged ?

(6) If issue No. 5 is not proved, is not the bank liable ?

(7) If issue No. 5 is proved, is the bank liable ?

(8) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ?

5. The Tribunal found that the applicant was a displaced person as defined in the Act, that his claim was well within time, that the value of the bales pledged by the petitioner with the bank was Rs. 22,900/-, and that the bank had failed to prove that the goods disappeared owing to the communal disturbances. It was, however, held that the claim was not a "debt" as defined in Sub-section (6) of Section 2 of the Act and that accordingly the peti- tion was not maintainable under Section 13 of the Act. The application was in the result dismissed but the parties were left to bear their own costs.

6. The petitioner appealed to this Court and the learned Single Judge held that Ram Lal was a de