J. S. BAJAJ & ORS. versus ARJANDAS DAYARAM VACHHANI & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 440 · Decided: 21-01-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
440 
J, S, BAJAJ & ORS. 
v. 
ARJANDAS DAYARAM VACHHANI & ORS. 
Janµary 21, 1970 
[S. M. SiKRI, V. BHARGAVA AND l, D. DUA, JJ.] 
8 
The Displaced Persons 
(Compensation and Rehabilil<ltion) 
Rule" 
r, 19(2) and (3)-Scope of. 
Rule 19(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita· 
lion) Rules provides for the method of compensation to_ joint families 
which have migrated to India as a result of the partition of the country 
in 1947. Rule 19(3) (b) provides that for the purpose of calculating the 
C 
nµmber of members of a joint family. Under r. 19(2), a person who was 
a lineal descendant in the main line of another 
living member of the. 
family entitled to claim partition shall be excluded. 
A joint family consisting of a father and his sons bad migrated to 
India from Sind. The father made an application for the verification of 
claim in respect of the properties left by the family in Sind and 
the 
claim was verified. One of the sons claimed that the father and sons 
D 
should be treated as tenants-in-common. The authorities under the Act 
held that the parties constituted a joint .Hindu family and that in view 
of the r. 19(3) (b), r. 17(2) was not applicable. The High Court quashed 
the order holding that the living member of the family 
whose 
line.al 
descendants are to be excluded under r. 19(3) (b), must be a person other 
than their father. on the assumption that a person against whom partition 
can be claimed by the father must be some member of the family other 
E 
than his lineal descendants. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : The special provision embodied in . the rule is intended to 
treat a joint Hindu family consisting only of a father and his sons as one 
unit for the purpose of payment of compensation for the ioint family 
property left in Pakistan. 'The rule is rational and logical and its language 
F 
is not susceptible of the meaning given to it by the High Court, because 
under Hindu law a father and each of his sons are entitled to claim parti· 
tion against each other. [444 A-B, C-F] 
CIVIL APPE.LLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeill No. 1178 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
G 
June 15, 16, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil 
Application No. 2061 of 1963. 
· V. A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant. 
N. N, Keswani for the rtl/lpondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . 
H 
DUA. J. This appeal by special leave iS directed again'st the 
decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing 
'·
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
J. s. BA>JAJ v. ARJANDAS (Dua, J.) 
44[ 
a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution by 
Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani challenging the order of the Dep~ty 
Chief Settlement Commissioner (with delegated powers of Chief 
Settlement Commissioner) under the Displaced Persons (Com-
pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), hereafter 
referred to as the Act, disallowing the writ petitioner's revision 
from the order of the Settlement Officer (with delegated powers 
of Settlement Commissioner) which had affirmed on appeal the 
order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. 
The writ petitioner's 
case was held to fall within r. 19 ( 3) of the Displaced Persons 
(C & R) Rules, hereafter called the Rules, made by the Central 
Government under s. 40 of the Act. 
The question which falls 
for decision is a very short one and it relates to the meaning and 
effect of r. 19(3). 
The facts are not in dispute. 
Kishanchand Dayaram 
Vachhani and his four sons Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani, Daya-
ram A. Vachhani, Ramchand Dayaram Vachhani and Kanayalal 
Dayaram Vachhani constituted a joint Hindu family when, as a 
result of partition of the country in 1947, they migrated from Sind 
(now in Pakistan) to India. 
After their migration Kishanchand 
Dayaram Vachhani, the father, made an application for vertifica-
tion of claim in respect of the properties left by the joint Hindu 
family in Sind. 
This claim was duly verified. It is unnecessary 
to make a detailed reference to the history of the case. 
Suffice 
it to say that on October 28, 1961 Shri Purshottam Sarup, 
Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner (with delegated powers 
of Chief Settlement Commissioner) (Rehabilitation Department) 
allowed the appeal preferred by Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani 
from the order of Shri H. K. Chaudhary, Regional Settlement 
Commissioner, Bombay, dated May 14, 1961 and after setting 
aside the impugned order, directed

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