D.N. SHARMA, J.M.: ORDER As all these appeals filed by Revenue arise out of consolidated order dt. 15 th Feb., 1983 passed by AAC and give rise to common issue, they were heard together and for sake of convenience, are being disposed of by this single order. 2. assessee applied for adjournment on ground of his illness. prayer is not supported by medical certificate or any other material. We, therefore, refuse prayer for adjournment. Moreover, we do not find it necessary to adjourn hearing of appeals. At time of hearing of appeals none put in appearance on behalf of assessee. appeals were, therefore, heard ex parte and have to be disposed of on basis of submissions made on behalf of Revenue and materials available on record. 3. assessee is individual. assessment years involved are 1968- 69 to 1974-75. Shri B. B. Kundu, learned Departmental Representative, stated before us that assessee carries on business as contractor and that he constructed two bridges for Government of Assam. assessee filed two separate suits for recovery of compensation, being suit No. 33 of 1965 and No. 21 of 1966 in Court of sub-Judge, Silchar. It further appears that both suits were decreed by sub-Judge on 15 th Sept., 1971 and Court also awarded pendente lite interest of Rs. 49,845.98 and Rs. 57,302.24 in two suits, respectively. It appears that appeals were filed against judgment of decree passed by sub-Judge, Silchar, in aforesaid two suits and judgment and decree passed by trial Court in each suit were set aside by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court. These facts were also noted by WTO in his assessment orders for assessment years under consideration. entire amount of pendente lite interest awarded under two decrees of trial Court amounting to Rs. 1,07,148 was received by assessee sometime in August 1973 and same was spread over as follows : Assessment year Amount Rs. 1966-67 4,450 1967-68 12,414 1968-69 15 ,146 1969-70 15 ,146 1970-71 15 ,146 1971-72 15 ,146 1972-73 15 ,146 1973-74 514 1,07,148 4. WTO has further noted in assessment orders that assessee filed appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court against judgment and decree passed by Hon'ble High Court. According to WTO, right to interest is taxable. He, accordingly, added amounts of Rs. 32,050, Rs. 47,196, Rs. 62,342, Rs. 77,488, Rs. 92,634 and Rs. 97,148 in net wealth of assessee for asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1973-74, respectively. For asst. yr. 1973-74, WTO allowed expenses of Rs. 10,000 out of sum of Rs. 1,07,148 and, therefore, brought to wealth-tax balance interest amount of Rs. 97,148. 5 . For asst. yr. 1974-75, WTO took view that interest amount was not includible in net wealth of assessee. 6. matter was carried in appeal before AAC. AAC was of view that question of ownership over pendente lite interest is sub judice and that assessee was not rightful owner of pendente lite interest. He, therefore, deleted additions made by WTO for asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1973-74 on account of pendente lite interest. Aggrieved, Revenue has come up in appeal for all these assessment years. 7. At outset, it may be mentioned that appeal filed by Revenue for asst. yr. 1974-75 is misconceived. In grounds of appeal, it is stated that AAC erred in deleting addition for interest of Rs. 43,000. As has already been pointed out above, for asst. yr. 1974-75, no addition on account of interest was made by WTO in assessment order. appellate order of AAC also shows that no appeal was filed for asst. yr. 1974-75 so far as addition of interest is concerned. Therefore, appeal for asst. yr. 1974- 75 is incompetent and is liable to be dismissed on this ground as ground taken does not arise out of orders of authorities below. 8. learned Departmental Representative has submitted before us that claim for pendente lite interest is asset, value whereof has been quantified. It was further pointed out that though Hon'ble Gauhati Judge, Silchar, in two suits, assessees has gone up in appeal before Supreme Court and has not given up his claim. It was further pointed out that money received by assessee as pendente lite interest under decrees passed by sub-Judge, Silchar, is still in his hands and, therefore, WTO was fully justified in including amount of pendente lite interest in net wealth of assessee for asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1973-74. It was, thus, urged that AAC was wholly in error in deleting additions made by WTO for six assessment years. 9 . We have considered contentions raised on behalf of Revenue and have gone through record of case. As has been stated before us on behalf of Revenue, assessee filed two separate suits in Court of sub- Judge, Silchar, for recovery of compensation. We feel handicapped by fact that copies of plaints of those suits as also copies of judgment and decree passed by trial Court in each suit have not been made available to us. On basis of what has been submitted before us on behalf of Revenue, we can safely conclude that assessee's right to recover compensation or damages by way of interest for breach of contract is mere right to sue and is not actionable claim and is, therefore, not transferable in view of clear provisions of s. 6(e) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Sec. 6 says that property of any kind may be transferred except as otherwise provided by this Act or any other law for time being in force. This goes to show that by this Act or any other law for time being in force. This goes to show that mere right to sue cannot be regarded as property. Now, under s. 3 of WT Act, 1957 ('the Act'), wealth-tax is chargeable in respect of net wealth of assessee. 'Net wealth' is defined in s. 2(m) of Act and it means amount by which aggregate value of all assets belonging to assessee on valuation date is in excess of aggregate value of all debts owed by assessee on valuation date. definition of word 'asset' as given in s. 2(e) is not exhaustive but is inclusive. 'Asset' includes property of every description, movable or immovable, with certain exceptions as given in s. 2(e). So, in instant case, it is to be seen whether pendente lite interest awarded under decree passed by sub-Judge, Silchar, is asset belonging to assessee. 10. Sec. 34 of CPC, 1908, vests civil Court with discretion to award pendente lite interest at such rate as Court deemed it reasonable to be paid on principal sum adjudge, from date of suit to date of decree. So, matter relating to award of pendente lite interest is in sole discretion of Court, though this discretion is to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily or in capricious manner. litigant bringing suit for recovery of money in civil Court cannot, as of right, claim pendente lite interest. amount awarded as pendente lite interest does not amount to debt before Court passes decree awarding pendente lite interest. Before passing of decree no claim subsists in favour of person bringing suit for recovery of money regarding pendente lite interest. right to receive pendente lite interest accrues or arises for first time when Court awards pendente lite interest under s. 34. Before passing of decree such person can have no interest in or claim over pendente lite interest. His right to receive pendente lite interest arises only under decree and such right is extinguished as soon as decree awarding pendente lite interest is set aside by higher Court. So, as right to receive pendente lite interest is neither actionable claim nor even mere right to sue. Such right which does not exist before passing of decree by competent Court, cannot be treated as property. 11. Now, coming to facts of case in hands, it will be seen that sub-Judge, Silchar, passed two separate decress in favour of assessee and against State of Assam awarding pendente lite interest aggregating to Rs. 1,07,148. This amount was received by assessee some time in August 1973. It, however, appears that subsequently judgments and decress passed by sub-judge, Silchar, were set aside by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and suits brought by assessee were dismissed. moment decress passed by trial Court were set aside by Hon'ble High Court, assessee's right to receive pendente lite interest under original decrees of trial Court became extinct and no longer survived. assessee has, no doubt, filed appeal before Supreme Court challenging decision of Hon'ble High Court, but this fact cannot have effect of reviving decrees of trial Court unless his claim is again decreed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and he is again awarded pendente lite interest. fact that he has not given up his claim is of no consequence. No, doubt, according to material available on record, assessee still holds money received by him under original decrees passed by sub-Judge, Silchar, as pendente lite interest. But by virtue of judgment and decree passed by Hon'ble High Court, he lost right to retain that amount as pendente lite interest and it is bound to be refunded to State Government. Thus, even though assessee is holding money, property in money does not belong to him. It amounts to debt or liability in his hands which he owes to State Government as under decree of High Court amount received by him is refundable to State Government. Liability to wealth-tax arises out of ownership of asset and not otherwise. Mere possession unaccompanied by right of ownership of property would not bring property within definition of 'net wealth' for it would not be asset belonging to assessee. In view of this clear position we have no doubt in our minds that property in amount in question does not vest in assessee and, therefore, money received by him cannot be held to be asset belonging to him. In this view of matter, amount in question cannot be included in his net wealth and cannot be brought to tax. 12. In view of what has been said above, we maintain consolidated order of AAC on point. 1 3 . In result, all Departmental appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. dismissed. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. R.K. BHATTACHARJEE