Evacuee property vesting operates automatically, and repeal does not undo statutory vesting absent contrary provision.

Property owned by a person resident in Pakistan after partition was held to fall within the evacuee definition under section 2(c)(ii) of the United Provinces Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, because she could not occupy, supervise or manage the property in the United Provinces. On that basis, the property vested automatically in the Custodian under section 5, and the later repeal by the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 did not undo that vesting. An earlier departmental assurance could not override the statutory consequence. The sale proceeds, however, could not also be treated as evacuee property and were to be held for the purchaser.

---

---

Issues: Whether the property purchased by Mrs. Naqvi had become evacuee property under the United Provinces Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, and whether the sale proceeds deposited in the bank could also be treated as evacuee property.

Analysis: The relevant test was whether Mrs. Naqvi fell within the definition of an evacuee under section 2(c) of the Ordinance. Even though section 2(c)(i) was not attracted on the facts, section 2(c)(ii) applied because she was resident in Pakistan after partition and was unable to occupy, supervise or manage the property in the United Provinces. Once the property answered that description, it vested automatically in the Custodian under section 5 of the Ordinance, and the later repeal of the Ordinance by section 58 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 did not divest that vesting. The Court also rejected the contention that an earlier erroneous assurance by the department could prevent enforcement of the statutory consequence. As to the sale proceeds, the Court held that the property and the sale consideration could not both be evacuee property; once the property was held evacuee property, the amount paid to Mrs. Naqvi and deposited in the bank had to be treated as held in trust for the purchaser.

Conclusion: The property was validly treated as evacuee property, the Custodian's claim succeeded, and the purchaser was entitled to withdraw the deposited sum of Rs. 42,000 with accrued interest.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, with the substantive declaration of evacuee property maintained while protecting the respondent's entitlement to the bank deposit representing the sale consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a person falls within the statutory definition of evacuee under the applicable clause, evacuee property vests automatically in the Custodian by force of the statute, and such vesting continues notwithstanding repeal and reenactment unless the new law provides otherwise.

---