HAR GOVIND versus AZIZ AHMAD & ANR.

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 796 · Decided: 08-08-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

796 
HAR GOVIND 
v. 
AZIZ AHMAD & ANR. 
August 8, 1969 
[J. C SHAH, ACTING C.J., V. RAMASWAM! AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Adminis1ration of Evacuee Properry Act, 1950 (3! of 1950), s. 40-
Vendor migrating to Pakistan after transfer of 
property-Property not 
declared evacut: property-Validity of transfer without confirmation by 
Custodian-Admi11is1ration of Evacuee Property Ordinance. 1949 (27 of 
B 
1949), is. 38 and 39. 
C 
The first res90ndent entered into an agreement to sell his properties 
to the oppellant. 
Disputes relating to completioo df the sale were refer-
red to arbitration. 
An award was made directing the first respondent to 
execute the documents in respect of the transfer by him wilhin one month 
from the date of the receipt of the confirmation or approval according to 
law, failing which the appellant was at liberty to get it executed and re-
gistered through court. 
The award was made a rule of 'the court 
on 
November 30, 1949 and a decree on the basis of the award was granted. 
The fir<t respoodent left India 'for Pakistan some date after November 22, 
I969. The appellant moved the Deputy Olstodian of Evacuee Property 
for confirmation of the transfer unJer s. 38 of the Administratioo of 
Evacuee Property Ordlnance, 1949 or under s. 40 of the Administration 
of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The Deputy Custodian accorded confir-
mation, but the Additional Oistodian set aside the order df the Deputy 
Custodian. 
The appellant filed an application 
for 
execution of 
the 
decree on the basis of the award lo which objections were filed by 
the 
Custodian. The District Judge held that on the date Of the decree tramfer 
of properties could not be effected unless confirmed by ·the Custodian, 
Tiie appellant's appeal to the High Court was dismissed. In appeal to 
this Court, it was contended that there could be no bar to tbe execution 
of the decree based on the award, since the respondent's properties were 
never declared to be evacuee properties 
either under Central Ordinance 
27 of 1949 or Central Act 31 of 1951 and that they did not vest in the 
Custodian unless they were so declared 
after appropriate 
proceedings. 
Disrr.issing the appeal, 
HELD ; Under the prov1S1ons of s. 38( I) of Central Ordinance 27 
of 1949 ana s. 4-0(ll of Central Act 31 of 1951, transfer of property was 
ineffective unless confirmed by the Custodian even if a person became an 
evacuee after the date df transfer. 
It was not necessary that the property 
should have been declared or notified to be evacuee property before tho!e 
provisions were attracted. (800 DJ 
In the present case the respondent had become an evacuee within the 
meaning of s. 2( d) of the Ordinance and the Act. The Additional Custo-
dian declined to confirm the tramfer made by the respondent and there-
fore the condition precedent for a valid transfer remained unsatisfied. 
Further, even according to the award the confirmation or approval of the 
Custodian had to be obtained before the transfer of documents were to be 
executed and completed in accordance with law. It was incumbent on the 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
HAR GOVIND v. AZIZ AHMAD (Grover, J.) 
797 
appellant to obtain the confirmation order before he could ask for any 
further steps to be taken by the courts in the matter of execution and regis-
tration df the transfer deed. [800 HJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 381 of 
1965. 
Appeal by speciail leave .from the judgment and decree dated 
May 2, 1961 -of the Allahabad High Court in Execution First 
Appeal No. 10 of 1954. 
Naunit Lal, for the appellant. 
V. A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents. 
fhe Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. 
This fo an appeal by special leave from a judgment 
of the Allahabad High Court confirming the order of the Dis-
:rict Judge dismissing an Execution Application filed 
by 
the 
appellant. 
Or. June i6, 1948 the appellant entered into an agreement 
with Aziz Ahmed Khan-respondent No. 1-for the 
sale of 
certain properties comprising houses and plots in the towu of 
Bareilley. 
The sale consideration of Rs. 1,45,000/- was stated 
to have been already paid by the appellant to the vendor. Sub-
sequently disputes arose between the vendor and the appellant 
regarding the completion of the sale. 
These disputes wece refer-
ed to the arbitration of Shri R. R. Agarwal who gave an award 
on August 30, 1949 which was made a rule of the court on 
November 30, 1949. A

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