FAZAL BHAI DHALA versus CUSTODIAN-GENERAL OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, DELHI

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 21-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

J(eshavlal 
M ohanlal Shah 
v. 
The State of 
Bombay 
Raghubar 
Dayal]. 
March 2I. 
456 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
by a Magistrate while acting or purporting to act in 
the discharge of his official duty if he had ceased to be 
a Magistrate at the time the complaint is made or 
police report is submitted to the Court, i.e., at the 
time of the taking of cognizance of the offence com-
mitted. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. 
Appeal dismissed. 
F AZAL BHAI DHALA 
v. 
CUSTODIAN-GEKERAL OF EVACUEE 
PROPERTY, DELHI 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. C. DAS GUPTA and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Evacuee Property-Meaning of-Malafide transfer-Effect of 
-Custodian-Interference with questions not before him in appeal 
-Revisional Jurisdiction-Notice, if essential before exercising 
jurisdiction-Non-issue of notice, when fatal-Partnership at will 
-Dissolution of-Assets, if and when vest in Custodian-Indian 
Partnership Act, r932 (IX of r932), s. 43-Government of India 
Ordinance No. XXV II of r949, s. 7(I)-Administration of Evacuee 
Property Act, z950 (XXXI of z950), ss. 2(f), 26, 40. 
F, the appellant, and A his brother, were partners in a busi-
ness of hides and skins. On August ro, 1949, A executed a deed 
of sale in respect of some immoveable properties in Orissa and 
Madras in favour of F. A deed of dissolution of the partner-
ship was also executed on August 12, 1949, wherein it was inter 
alia stated that the partners had agreed that the said partner-
ship shall stand dissolved as from November 2, 1948. 
On receipt of information that A had migrated to Pakistan 
after transferring his properties to his brother F, the Assistant 
Custodian of Evacuee Property, issued a notice to Funders. 7(1) 
of the Ordinance 27 of 1949 in respect of immoveable properties 
in Orissaincluding the properties covered by the sale deed and 
the business in hides and skins and certain immoveable proper-
ties standing in the name of the firm. 
In reply F contended that he had become the sole pro-
prietor of the business with all assets and liabilities, with effect 
from November 2, 1948, when the partnership was dissolved 
• 
• 
-
J 
> 
> 
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
457 
and that while some of the immoveable properties as mentioned 
z96z 
in the notice had been conveyed to him by a deed of sale by A, 
--
the rest being assets of the firm, had vested in him after the Fatal Bhai Dhala 
dissolution of partnership. 
v. 
The Assistant Custodian held that though the transfer of Custodian-General 
the properties mentioned in the sale deed was for adequate 
of Evacu" . 
and valuable consideration it was not at all bona fide; as regards p,0P"1Y· Delhi 
other properties and the hides and skins business itself, A had 
no interest as the partnership had been dissolved on November 
2, r948. 
Against this decision F appealed to the Custodian, who 
held that these properties were rightly declared as evacuee 
properties and that as regards the transfer of other properties, 
the same amount of mala fides was present and as such these 
should also be included in the list of evacuee properties. 
The appeal to Custodian-General was rejected and the 
appellant moved the Supreme Court by special leave. Four con-
tentions were urged by the appella!lt:-
Firstiy, that the Custodian-General should have held that 
the Custodian acted without jurisdiction in interfering with the 
order passed by the Assistant Custodian that the hides business 
and the properties mentioned in Sch. A III of the notice were 
not evacuee properties and should be released. 
Secondly, that as against the Assistant Custodian's order 
in respect of the hides business and the immoveable proper-
ties in Sch. A III the Custodian Department had not preferred 
any appeal, so that the Custodian could not interfere with it, 
in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction. The Custodian's order 
in respect of these properties could not have been passod, in 
exercise of the revisional jurisdiction conferred on him by s. 27 
of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act as no notice 
of such intention to examine the records in revision had been 
issued to F. 
Thirdly, once the partnership business was dissolved, there 
could be no question of declaring the dissolved partnership as 
an evacuee property, in view of s. 43 of the Indian Partnership 
Act. 
Fourthly, the transaction evidenced by the two deeds, viz., 
the sale deed and the dissolution were merely in furtherance of 
the w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.