A claim for damages for breach of contract is not covered by the definition of "debt" in Section 2(6) of the Displaced Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act, 1951.

Kapur, J.

1. The controlling question which is raised in this revision is the determination of the meaning of the word "debt" as given in Section 2(6), Displaced Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act, 1951.

2. Nikka Singh and others petitioners entered into a contract with the opposite party for the purchase of 300 pieces of shirting at Rs. 21/14/-per piece. The goods were delivered and a bill was drawn on the purchaser for a sum of Rs. 6,598714/-which was paid. When the goods were" actually received bv the purchasers it was, it is alleged, found that they were not of the requisite quality and therefore there was a breach of warranty by the sellers the opposite party.

3. On 17-2-1952 Nikka Singh and others made an application under Section 13. Displaced Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act for the recovery of Rs. 1,200/- on account of damages of breach of warranty. The respondents in that case who are now the opposite party pleaded that the application was not covered by the provisions of the Act, and several other questions were raised. But the real question that arises is the question of jurisdiction and that" depends upon the meaning to be attached to the word "debts". There is no doubt that the applicants were displaced persons and that if the claim can be brought within the meaning of the word "debt" the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to determine the matter. Mr. Bhatnagar acting as a Tribunal has held against the applicants finding that "debt" does not include a claim for damages for breach of contract of sale of goods. The applicants have come up in revision to this Court and the matter was heard by Hon ble the Chief Justice Bhandari C. J., who referred the matter to a Division Bench.

4. Two questions would arise:

(1) whether an amount of money borrowed for the first time after the partition or a claim to damages which arises out of a breach of contract after the partition is a "debt"; and

(2) whether a claim for damages for breach of contract by itself is covered by the definition of the word "debt" as given in Section 2(6) of the Act

5. With regard to the first point there is conflict of authority in this Court itself. I had held that any liability which arises after the partition is not a debt, but my learned brothers Khosla and Harnam Singh JJ. in two single bench cases have taken a contrary view. As the case can be decided on the second question, I do not propose to go into the first question.

6. The second question as to whether a claim for damages for breach of contract falls within the meaning of the word "debt" as given in section 2 (6) of the Act falls for determination in this case, The word "debt" is defined in Section 2(6) and the relevant portion of tihat section reads as follows :

"2(6) debt means any pecuniary liability, whether payable presently or in future, or under a decree or order of a civil or revenue Court or otherwise, or whether ascertained or to be ascertained which (a) * * *

(b) * * *

(c) is due to a displaced person from any other person (whether a displaced person or not) ordi- narily residing in the territories to which this Act extends; and includes any pecuniary liability incurred before the commencement of this Act by any such person as is referred to in this clause which is based on, and is solely by way of renewal of, any such liability as is referred to in Sub-clause (a) or Sub-clause (b) or Sub-clause (c) Provided that in the case of a loan, whether in cash or in bind, the amount, originally advanced and not the amount for which the liability has been renewed shall be deemed to be the extent of the liability; but does not include any pecuniary liability due under a decree passed after the 15th day of August, 1947, by any Court situate in West Pakistan or any pecuniary liability the proof of which depends merely on an oral agreement."

7. The petitioners contention is that the words "pecuniary liability" are wide enough to cover all cases where the claim is to result in a decree for money