RAM GOPAL REDDY versus ADDITIONAL CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY, HYDERABAD

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 06-01-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
RAM GOPAL REDDY 
v. 
ADDITIONAL ClJ~'TODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY, 
HYDERABAD 
January 6, 1966 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI, AND 
P. SATYANARAYANA Ruu, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Administration of Evacuee Propmi 
Act (31 of 1950) s. 46, 
and 
Transfer of Propeiy Act (4 of 18.~2) ,. ;.1 A- Lund purchused in l94f>--
Vendor declared evacuee in 1949 c~1d lt1nd ch·c/c.red evacuee property-
C 
suit b1 purchaser for declara:ion oj owntisl11p n:h~.-her lies. 
The appellant purchased certilin land from one A in 1946. 
Allbough 
the land was valued at more lhan R-,. 100 no reghtcred deed of sale was 
cxecu~ed. In 1949, A was de";ared an evacuee and the appellant wa~ given 
notice by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property to sltow cause why 
the land should not be declared evacuee property. 
No appearance was 
put ;n by the appellant in answer to the notice and the land was declared 
D 
evacuee property. 
The appellant represented to the departmental autho-
rities that he had become ,,.,vncr of the kind before the Evacuee Propcny 
law came into force. ·rhe Cu::.1odian did not accept the plea and obscrv~ 
ed that if the appellant was aggrieved by the dc..-cision he could obtain 
a declaration of his rights from a compztent court. 
The appellant ther.:· 
fore filed a suit which was con1ested by the de'!1artment on the ground 
that s. 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act was a bar. The 
subordinate Judge held that the court had jurisdiction because of s. 53A 
E 
of Transfer of Properry Act. 
In appeal by the Custodian the High Court 
disagreed with the Subo,dinate Judge and reversed his decision. 
The 
appellant then came to this Court by special leave. 
HELD : The ,.chcme of the Evacuee Property Act clearly IS that when 
the property admittedly belongs to the evacuee any person claim:ng the 
property or any interest or ri!_~ht t~rein has, on receip: of a notice under 
s. 7(1), to appear before the authorities cnti1led to deal w:th the maltcr 
•. 
under the Act. 
Any person aggrieved by an order of such an au1hority 
made under s. 7 has the right to appeal under s. 24 arul if necessary to go 
in revision under s. 27. 
The Act thus provides a complete machinery for 
a person interested in any properly to put forward his claims before the 
competent authorities. 
Having provided this machinery the Act by s. 46 
bars the jurisdiction of c'vil ;ind revenue coun-; to entertain or adjud:cate 
upon any question whether any property or any right or interest in any 
property is or is not evacuee property. 
Any transfe~ec from an evacuee 
G 
claiming the property or any right or interc~t therein has to avail of the 
remedies under the Act and cannot go to a civil court. The fa<:t that in 
the present C..!SC the Custodk1n in his order said that the. appellant could 
go to a competent court couht not confer jurisdiction on 1he Court. 
Nor could it be said on the facts found that the appellant had become 
the owner of the proper:y before 1947, for, admittedly the property was 
worth more than R~. 100 and \\'ithout a registered sale deed it \\·as not 
II 
poasible for the title to paSi. 
It may be that ':! A tried to get 
back the property s. 
53-A of the 
Transfer of Property Act would come to the aid of the appellant in de-
•
•
•
,. 
I 
) 
.I 
' 
' • 
1--,. 
\ 
A 
B 
RAM GOPAL v. CUSTODIAN (Wanchoo, !.) 
215 
fence 
But the present suit had been filed to establish tho right of the 
appeliant as owner of the property and in such a suit the appellant could 
not take the benefit of s. 53-A. [217 B-218 BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 885 of 
1963. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree, dated April 8, 1960 
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal No. 21/1of1956. 
T. V. R. Tatacharl, for the appellant. 
N. S. Bindra and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
Wanchoo, J. 
The only question raised in this appeal on a 
D 
E 
F 
G 
certificate granted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court is whether 
the suit brought by the appellant is barred under s. 46 of the 
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, No. 
31 
of 
1950, 
(hereinafter referred to as the Act). 
The facts are not in dis-
pute and may be briefly narrated. 
On November 15, 1946, the appellant claimed to have pur-
chased certain patta lands from one Abdul Aziz Khan and paid 
him Rs. 6,127 /8/- in Osmania Sicca. The appellant got posses-
sion of the land and thereafter in June 1949 Abdul

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