DEPUTY CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS versus OFFICIAL RECEIVER OF THE ESTATE OF DAULAT RAM SURANA, DELHI

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 220 · Decided: 03-09-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

220 
DEPUTY CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, NEW DELHI A 
. 
AND OTIIERS 
v. 
OFHCIAL RECEIVER OF THE ESTATE 01'' DAULAT RAM 
SURANA, DELHI 
September 3, I 964 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., J. c. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR JJ.) 
Adrnbiistration of l::vocure Proptrty Act (31 of 1950), s. 7(1) and 
Provincial Insolvency Act (5 of 1920), ss. 27 and 28(1)-Emigralion le 
Pakistan-Emigrant declared insolvent and thereafter as evocue~Whether 
hi.< property could he declared evacuee property. 
An Indian emigrated to Pakistan in February, 1950. 
In Man:h, 1950 
a petition was presented by his creditors for adjudicating him an insolvent 
and it was ordered. Thereafter in 1951 the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee 
Property ;..ucd a notice under s. 7(1) of the Adminiotration of Evacuee 
Property Act ( 31 of 1950) to the 
interested 
pcroons to show cause 
why the emigrant's property should not be declared evacuee property. 
In 
spito ol objections of the respondent (Official Receiver), the declaration 
was made in 1954, •nd the order was confinme<l by the Deputy Custodian 
and the Cwtodian General. 
The respondent then mo•cd the High Court 
under An. 226 of the Constitution. 
The High Court held that it must he 
shown at the time of the declaration that the propeny in question is evacuee 
property, and as the insolvent lost bis title to the property which had •csted 
in the Official Receiver, the property could not be declared evacuee pro-
perty. The Deputy Custodian appealed to the Supreme Court.· 
HELD : The appeal should be allowed. 
The construction of s. 7 ( 1) presents a problem which can be resolved 
not merely by the adoption of the mechanical rulr of construction based on 
grammar, but by a liberal construction which takes into account the bearing 
and purport of rhe relevant words used in the section considered in the 
light of the relevant provisions of the Act and the principal object of the 
Act. 
So construed. all that the section requires i•, that the appropriate 
authority should con.•ider whether the property in r.,,pect of which a decla-
ration ii about to be made was evacuee property under s. 2(f) of the 
Admini>tration of Evacuee Property Act and the fact that the property haJ 
vested in the Official Receiver before proceedings were commenced Under 
s. 7( I) of the Act, would not affect the charact<r of the property. [225G-
H; 226A-B: 229E-F]. 
l::braltim Ahoaf',crkar and cu101her Y, Tek Chand Do/wani, {1953] S.C.R. 
691, explained. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 489 of 
J 962. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 18, I 960, 
of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil Writ 
No. 200-D of J 955. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer and B. R. G. K. Achar. for the appellant~. 
G. S. Pathak and B. C. Misra, for the respondent. 
R 
c 
D 
F 
G 
II 
'oy, CUSTODIAN v. OFFL. RECEJVER (Gajendragadkar c. J.) 221 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Gajendragadkar C. J. What is the relevant date by reference 
to which the character of the property has to be determined in 
issuing a notification of evacuee property under section 7(1) of the 
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (No. 31 of 1950) 
B 
(hereinafter called the Act)? That is the short question which arises 
in this appeal. 
The decision of this question lies within a very 
narrow compass, because it has to be found on a reasonable con-
struction of the material words used in s. 7(1) itself; but the deter-
mination of the scope and effect of these material words presents a 
somewhat difficult problem of construction and it has to be resolved 
c 
after reading the said provision in the light of other relevant 
circumstances. 
An Indian citizen named Daulat Ram Surana was carrying 
on business at, Delhi as a jeweller in the name of Sardar Singh 
Daulat Ram. He had a Muslim mistress and it appears that by 
D 
reason of his affection for the said mistress he migrated to Pakistan 
in the first week of February, 1950. He was possessed of extensive 
properties, both movable and immovable, but apparently, he was 
involved in financial difficulties about that time, and so, before he 
migrztted to Pakistan he transferred his t share in his ancestral 
house in Baidwara Street, Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 26,000. 
E 
On the 14th March, 1950, Nanak Chand and certain other persons 
claiming to be his creditors, filed a petition of insolvency against 
the firm of Daulat Ram and against Daulat Ram himself. 
On 
June 17, 1950, bo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.