TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Evacuee Property Act, Bars Civil Suit</h1> <h3>Ram Gopal Reddy Versus Additional Custodian Evacuee Property Hyderabad</h3> Ram Gopal Reddy Versus Additional Custodian Evacuee Property Hyderabad - 1966 AIR 1438, 1966 (3) SCR 214 Issues:- Interpretation of Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, No. 31 of 1950- Jurisdiction of civil or revenue courts in matters related to evacuee property- Applicability of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property ActAnalysis:The judgment in question revolves around the interpretation of Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, No. 31 of 1950. The primary issue raised in the appeal is whether the suit brought by the appellant is barred under Section 46 of the Act. The facts of the case involve the appellant claiming to have purchased certain patta lands from Abdul Aziz Khan before he migrated to Pakistan, leading to the property being declared as evacuee property. The appellant sought a declaration of ownership through a suit resisted by the Custodian, who contended that the suit was barred under Section 46 of the Act.The Subordinate Judge initially ruled in favor of the appellant, citing Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and asserting civil court jurisdiction due to the sale predating 1947. However, the High Court reversed this decision, emphasizing that the appellant's failure to appear before the Deputy Custodian after receiving notice under Section 7 of the Act resulted in the property being declared evacuee property. The High Court held that the appellant's remedy was through appeal or revision under the Act, and a civil suit was barred under Section 46.The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision, stating that Section 46 prohibits civil or revenue courts from adjudicating on evacuee property matters unless expressly provided otherwise in the Act. The Court highlighted the comprehensive machinery provided by the Act for adjudicating claims related to evacuee property, including avenues for appeal and revision. The judgment emphasized that where property belonged to an evacuee and a transferee claimed rights, remedies under the Act must be pursued. The Court clarified that the Custodian's suggestion to establish rights in a competent court did not override Section 46's jurisdictional bar.Regarding the applicability of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the Court noted that while it could aid the appellant in defense against Abdul Aziz Khan reclaiming the property, it was not applicable in the present suit seeking ownership declaration. The absence of a registered sale deed transferring the property precluded the appellant from claiming ownership before 1947. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the suit was barred under Section 46 of the Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
