LexDR. RAJENDRA PRAKASH SHARMA versus GYAN CHANDRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
j 207 DR. RAJENDRA PRAKASH SHARMA v. GY AN CHANDRA & ORS. March 27, 1980 [R. S. SARKARIA AND R. S. PATHAK. JJ.] Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950 (31 of 1950). Sections 2(d), 7, 7A 8, 28 a11d 46 & Displaced Persom (Compe11Sation a11d Rehabi- litation) Act 1954 (44 of 1954) Sections 2(c), 22, 23, 24 a11d 27 Property acquired undier section 12 and auctioned under section 20 of 1954 Act-Pro- perty not declared by Custodian as evacuee property under section 7 of 1950 Act-Jurisdiction of Civil Court to determine question whether property declar- ed evacuee property-Section 46 of 1950 Act whether a bar-Section 27 of 1954 Act-Whether applicable. The appellant field a suit in the civil ccurt alleging that the house in dis- pute was owned by one Abdul Rashid and that he had let out the house to his father who was paying rent to him, that Abdul Rashid had migrated to Pakistan and the house was declared evacuee property. Later, the house was put to auction on January 29, 1969 under section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation a.nd Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, was purchased by him anti that the sale certificate was also issued. He further pleaded that the respon- dents-defendants had also filed suit No. 67 of 1970 for ejectment and arrears of rent against his father, that the suit was decreed on May 10, 1971, and that in pursuance of that decree they tried to dispossess him, and as he was not impleaded in the ejectment suit, he was not bound by that decree. The appellant claimed a declaration of his titlC to the property and prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from dispossessing him in execution of the ejectment decree. The respondents resisted the suit, denied that the property in dispute was ever declared evacuee property or that it was ever acquired under the provi- sions of the Act of 1954, and asserted that the appropriate authorities never passed any order under section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property A B c D E Act, 1950 declaring the property to be evacuee property. The 1st defendant F further pleaded that Abdul Rashid had only ! /6th share in the house in question which was purchased by his father and therefore the respondents are exclusive owners of the House. The said Abdul Rashid had migrated to Pakistan in the year 1967 long after he had transferred his interest and share in the house in question and that the father of the appellant had in collusion with the Custodian Department prepared fictitious proceedings relating to the sale of the house in question, that the Custodian Department had no juris- G diction to declare the property as evacuee property, much less could they sell it under the Act of 1954, and that the auction if any held, was a nullity having been brought about by misrepresentation and fraud. The trial court held that Abdul Rashid was not the owner of the house in question, that the entire proceedings taken by the Custodian Department were illegal and without jurisdiction and the pla.intiff did not acquire any title by virtue of the sale held by the Authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954, and accordingly dismissed the suit. H .A B c 208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ,[1980] 3 S.C.R. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, affirmed the findings of the trial court and held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred by section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and that it could go into the question whether or not the matter had been adjudicated upon by the authorities under that Act. It found that no inquiry, as con· templated under section 7 of the 19 50 Act was held and no Notification was issued by the· Authorities under that Act, declaring the suit property to be evacuee property. It further held that Abdul Rashid had nG title or interest, whate,•er, in the house in question after lluly 31, 1953, when, in accordance with the decree of the Civil Court in partition Suit No. 289 of 1953, Phool Chand had deposited the value of I/6th share of Abdul Rashid in this property. The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal preferred by the appellant affirming the concurrent findings of the conrt below. It also held that Abdul Rashid was in India much after the repeal of UP Ordinance No. I of 1949 and consequently there was no question of the property vesting automatically in the Custodian under th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.