LexRABIA BAI versus THE CUSTODIAN-GENERAL OF EVACUEE PROPERTY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. Stale of lvf aharashtra Subba Rao]. IQ6I fj - ·' January zz. 448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1961] The petitioner made an impassioned appeal to us that if such a construction be accepted, he would be at the mercy of the appropriate Government and that the said Government, out of spite, might not remit the balance of his sentence, with the result that he would be deprived of the fruits of remissions earned by him for sustained good conduct, useful service and evPn donation of blood. The Constitution as well as the Code of Criminal Procedure confer the power to remit a sentence on the executive Government and it is in its exclusive province. \Ve cannot assume that the appropriate Government will not exercise its jurisdic- tion in a reasonable manner. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the peti- tioner is under legal detention and the petition for habeas corpus is not maintainable. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. RABIABAI v. THE CUSTODIAN-GENERAL OF EVACUEE PROPERTY. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. SUBB:. RAO, K. N. W ANCHOO and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Evacuee Properly-Sale before enactment of evacuee laws- Confirmation of sale-Vendor inteniling to defeat apprehended evacuee .laws-Good faith, if lacking-Administration of Evacuee Property Act, r950 (XXXI of r950). s. 40(4)(a). M who had gone to Pakistan in 1947, sold his property in the State of Madras to the appellant on August II, 1949. At that time there was no legislation with respect to evacuee property in Madras. On August 23, 1949, the Administration of Evac- Property (Chief Commissioners Provinces) Ordinance, 1949 (XII of 1949), was extended to Madras. The appellant made an appli- cation for the confirmation of the sale. Subsequently, M was declared an evacuee and the property as evacuee property. It was found that M had entered into the transaction with the object of evading the evacuee Jaw which it was apprehended, would be extended to Madras. Consequently, confirmation of the ·sale was refused under s. 40(4)(a) of the Administration of Evacuee 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 449 Property Act, 1950, on the ground that the transaction had not been entered into in good faith. The appellant contended that Rabia Bai there was no lack of good faith on the part of M as he could not be said to have acted dishonestly when at the time of the sale no c d. v. G , 1 h b 1. d M d d th · t · uslo ian- '""""" evacuee aw ad een app 1e to a ras an at an tn ent1on to ,, E P p 1 avoid a future law could not be said to be dishonest. 01 vacuee ' 0 er: Held, that the vendor had not entered into the transaction in "good faith'" and the confirmation of the sale was rightly refused under s. 40(4)(a) of the Act. Having regard to the aim and object of the emergency legislation a deliberate intention to defeat the apprehended evacuee law motivating a sale amounted to want of "good faith'". If the vendor sold his property not for any necessity or any other legitimate purpose but solely with the object of converting it into cash and removing it to Pakistan, he intended to defeat the provisions of the evacuee law which he knew was to be extended to Madras soon and he acted dis- honestly within the meaning of s. 40(4)(a}. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 4, 1954, of the Custodian-General, Evacuee Property, in Revenue Case No. 427/R/ Judl. /53. A. V. Viswaru.itha BaBtri and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellant. H. N. Sanyal, Add.iticmal Solicitor-General of India, N. 8.Bindra and D. Gupta, for the respondent. 1961. January 12. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GA.JENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal by special leave Gaj1ndragadkar. is directed against the orde_r passed by the respon- dent, the Custodian-General of Evacuee Property, New Delhi, in a revision petition confirming the orders of the subordinate authorities whereby the application made by the appellant for confirmation ~f the sale transaction in question has been rejected under s. 40 (4) (a) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Aot, XXXI of 1950. The appellant, Rahia Bai, who is a citizen of India h.aving her residence at Grange, Y ercaud, in the Salem District, came to know in 1949 that premises No. 20, Godown Street, G.T., Madras, was for sale. Since the appellant desired to acquire some imm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.