J.R. JANI AND ORS. versus AHMED EBRAHIM OF RANGOON

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 647 · Decided: 14-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

J.R. JANI AND ORS. 
v. 
AHMED EBRAHIM OF RANGOON 
FEBRUARY 14, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950/Rules : 
Section 7/Rule 6-Purchase of shares of a company declared as an 
evacuee company-Purchaser claiming to be not an evacuee-Legality of the 
declaration that the company was an evacuee company-Single Judge of High 
Cow1 holding that such a declaration was illegat-On appeal held, nothing 
placed on record to establish that the pmty purchased six lakhs shares from 
the Company declared to be an evacuee property-Single Judge not justified 
in inte1f ening with the declaration that the company was an evacuee property. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 757-59 
of 1975. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.73, 27.9.71 and 24/25-11-
1969 of the Gujarat High Court in LP.A No. 85/70, Misc. C.A. No. 661/70 
A 
B 
c 
D 
and S.C.C. A No. 893 of 1965. 
E 
V.V. Vaze, C.V.S. Rao and Y.P. Mahajan, for the Appellants. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Though the respondent initially had appeared through Shri l.N. 
Shroff, Advocate, on his demise, notice was issued on February 29, 1992 
to the address available on record and till date nobody appears for the 
respondent. Neither unserved envelope nor acknowledgment has been 
received. Under these circumstances, the notice must be deemed to have 
been served on the respondent. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division 
Bench of the High Court of Gujarat dated February 19, 1973 made in 
L.P.A. No. 85170 holding that the L.P.A. is not maintainable. Therefore, 
the appellants have challenged the original order of the learned single 
Judge dated November 24-25, 1969 made in Special Civil Application No. 
F 
G 
m~~ 
H 
647 
,. 
648 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. [1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The substance of the contention raised and answered in the High 
B 
Court was that the respondent was at th~ material point of time a Burmeese 
citizen and he was never an evacuee. He held the shares of the Khatiawad 
Industries Ltd., a company, in former Junagadh State, which was declared 
as an evacuee company in 1959. He claimed that in the memory of his 
father and grand-father Ibrahim Vali Mohammed and Company he pur-
chased six lakhs shares in the said Khatiawad Industries Ltd. under an 
agreement dated June 12, 1944. He and his brothers had agreed to give 
those shares. to him. He all along was a resident of Burma. Consequently, 
he was not an evacuee. Without notice to him under Section 7 read with 
Rule 6 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the Rules, 
C the declaration of the said Khatiawad Industries Ltd. as an evacuee proper-
ty is illegal. The learned single Judge has held that though the respondent 
has filed a revision under Section27 of the Act since notice under Section 
7 read with Rule 6 was not served on the respondent, the declaration that 
the Khatiawad Industries Ltd. is an evacuee property is illegal and then::-
D fore, a 11011-est. 
E 
F 
The question is : whether the view taken by the High Court is correct 
in law? It is seen that the respondent had filed a revision before the 
revisional authority under Section 27 who had given him an opportunity to 
adduce evidence to show that he had purchased shares of a value of Rs. 
94,000 which he claimed to have have had in Khatiawad Industries Ltd. 
Except producing a stamp paper of 8 annas value on which there was a 
mention of the purchase of the shares in the name of Ibrahim Vali 
Mohammed and Company, no other evidence was adduced. The revisional 
authority on weighing the evidence found that the respondent was a 
business Tycoon having business interest in all over the Asian countries; it 
would be unlikely that he would not have mentioned in any of the books 
of acco~nts about the purchase of value of shares worth a sum of Rs. 94,000 
and odd without being submitted to any authorities for income tax pur-
poses etc. The agreement on stamp paper was not attested by any 
Magistrate or by a Notary as was in vogue in that State. It was, therefore, 
G difficult to believe that the respondent had purchased 6 lakhs of shares of 
Khatiawad Industries Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 94,000 and odd. Thereby, he 
had not shown that he had not an interest in the evacuee property. It is 
seen that though there is no notice served on the respondent as required 
under Section 7 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Rules before declari

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