Lex situs of debt and joint Hindu family status governed discharge and exemption under foreign evacuee property law.

A joint Hindu family firm was treated as a body of individuals, not an individual, for a Pakistan notification that exempted only cash deposits made by an individual, so the bank balance did not fall within that exception. On the second issue, the debt was regarded as locally situated at the debtor's place, and for an involuntary assignment the lex situs governed the effect of the Pakistan evacuee property law. Vesting of the debt in the Custodian therefore discharged the debtor, and the liability could not be enforced again in India. The appeal succeeded, the High Court decree was set aside, and the claim dismissal was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a joint Hindu family firm fell within the expression "a body of individuals whether incorporated or not" in the Pakistan notification dated 19 February 1952, so that the bank balance was excluded from the exception for cash deposits made by an individual; (ii) whether, on the vesting of the debt in the Custodian under the Pakistan evacuee property law, the debtor's liability in India stood extinguished.

Issue (i): Whether a joint Hindu family firm fell within the expression "a body of individuals whether incorporated or not" in the Pakistan notification dated 19 February 1952, so that the bank balance was excluded from the exception for cash deposits made by an individual.

Analysis: Under Mitakshara Hindu law, a joint Hindu family holds property in a quasi-corporate capacity and the coparcenary is a creature of law, not of contract. The juristic character of such a family is not that of a single individual. The expression in the notification had to be understood in that legal setting, and the family firm could not be treated as an individual for the purpose of the exemption.

Conclusion: The joint Hindu family firm was a body of individuals and not an individual within the meaning of the notification.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the vesting of the debt in the Custodian under the Pakistan evacuee property law, the debtor's liability in India stood extinguished.

Analysis: The debt was locally situate where the debtor and garnishable assets were found. In cases of involuntary assignment, the governing principle is lex situs, not the proper law of the contract. Once the debt vested in the Custodian under the foreign legislation, payment to the Custodian would operate to discharge the debtor, and the debtor's liability could not be enforced again in India.

Conclusion: The appellant's liability stood extinguished by the vesting of the debt in the Custodian.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's decree was set aside, and the Tribunal's dismissal of the claim was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: For an involuntary assignment of a debt, the situs of the debt determines the effect of foreign legislation on the debtor's liability, and a joint Hindu family firm is not an individual for a notification that exempts only cash deposits made by persons other than bodies of individuals.

---