Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether property vested in the Custodian under the Enemy Property Act, 1968 remained enemy property after the enemy subject died and the property devolved by succession on an Indian citizen, and whether the Custodian could continue to retain possession in the absence of a formal order of divestment by the Central Government.
Analysis: On a conjoint reading of Sections 2(b), 2(c), 6, 8, 13 and 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, the vesting in the Custodian was held to be limited to possession, management and control and not to transfer of title. The Act treats enemy property as property belonging to or held on behalf of an enemy or enemy subject, and expressly excludes a citizen of India from that category. Once the enemy subject died and the property devolved on the respondent, who was an Indian citizen and the sole heir, the property no longer answered the statutory description of enemy property. Section 13 did not preserve the enemy-character of the property after succession by a citizen of India, and Section 18 did not bar judicial relief where the property had ceased to retain the character of enemy property.
Conclusion: The property ceased to be enemy property on succession to the respondent, and the Custodian had no right to retain it. The appeal fails.