LexBHAROO MAL AND OTHERS versus CUSTODIAN GENERAL, EVACUEE PROPERTY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
March IO. 246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS BHAROO MAL AND OTHERS v. [1962] CUSTODIAN GENERAL, EVACUEE PROPERTY. (K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) ..... Evacuee Property-Custodian, Powers of-Whether can deter- 4 mine and recover rent in summary manner-Administration of Evacuee Property Act, I950 (JI of Ig50). s. Io-Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, r950, r. IO. The appellants exchanged their property in Pakistan with the property of an evacuee in India. They applied for confir- mation of the transaction which was granted by the Deputy Custodian. Later, the Custodian revised the order and set aside the confirmation and ordered the ejectment of the appellants from the properties which were the subject of exchange. He further ordered that they should render accounts of the rents and profits realised by them from this property. The appel- lants contended that the Custodian had no jurisdiction to pass any order requiring them to render accounts of the rents and profits. Held, that the Custodian had no powerunder the Adminis- tration of Evacuee Property Act to direct a person in unautho- rised possession of evacuee property to render accounts of rents and profits thereof without resorting to the ordinary remedy provided by law, that is, by way of suit. CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 7 to 9 of 1959. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 25, 1955, in cases Nos. 0551-R/CG/ 54, 0602-R/CG/54 and 0503-R/CG/54 of 1954. Achhru Ram and B. R. L. Ayengar, for the appel- lants. Gopal Singh and T. M. Sen, for the respondents. 1961. March 10. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by l - Mudholkar J. MuDHOLKAR, J.-These are appeals by special leave from three orders against an order passed on March 12, 1954 by the Custodian General, Evacuee Property, disposing of three revision petitions, two of which were preferred by one Bharoo Mal (since deceased) ,) ... t • I ~- j 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 247 and one by his wife, and now widow, Padma Devi. r96r Even though a common order was passed by the Cus- Bharoo Mal todian-General, three appeals have been preferred & Others before this Court. ' · v. The facts leading upto the appeals are briefly as cu,todian General, follows: Evacuee Property An agreement was entered into between Bharoomal and one Nanan Begum on April 11, 1948 for the ex- Mudholkar J. change of Bharoomal's properties at Sukkar in Sind, Pakistan for Nanan Begum's properties at Lucknow. Prior to that, on April 7, 1948 a similar agreement was entered into between Padma Devi and one Tahir Ali. It is common ground that in pursuance of the agreement Bharoomal and Padma Devi entered into possession of the properties obtained by them in ex- change from Nanan Begum and Tahir Ali respectively and the latter entered into possession of the properties belonging to the former situated in Sukkar. The deed of exchange was to be executed within two years of the date of agreement; but in fact it was never execut- ed. Consequently in the year 1950 Bharoomlal and Padma Devi instituted three suits for specific perfor- mance. These suits were decreed and sale deeds con- veying certain properties to Bharoomal and certain properties to Padma Devi were executed by the Court in February, 1952. In October, 1949 the U. P. Administration of Eva- cuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (I of 1949) was promul- gated and shortly thereafter the Administration of Evacuee Property (Chief Commissioners Provinces) Ordinance, 1949 (12 of 1949), promulgated by the Cen- tral Government, was extended to the United Provin- ces replacing U. P. Ordinance I of 1949. Nanan Begum and Tahir Ali having migrated to Pakistan, Bharoo- mal and Padma Devi made three applications under cl. 25(2) of the Central Ordinance for confirmation of the exchanges in their favour. These applications were granted by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property in the year 1950. Sometime in the year 1951 the Custodian of Evacuee Property suo motu revised the orders of the Deputy Custodian passed in the year 1950 on the ground that the agreements on the basis 248 SUPREME COURT R,EPORTS [1962] r96r of which the applications for confirmation were made by Bharoomal and Padma Devi do not amount to Bharoo ~'l-f al .,, Others transfers and that consequently they could not be v. confirmed. He also held that the deeds of transfer Custodi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.