Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

1966 (1) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in dispute and may be briefly narrated. On November 15, 1946, the appellant claimed to have purchased certain patta lands from one Abdul Aziz Khan and paid him ₹ 6,127/8/- in Osmania Sicca. The appellant got possession of the land and thereafter in June 1949 Abdul Aziz Khan applied in the Tahsil office for the transfer of the patta in the name of the appellant. Before, however, any transfer was made, Abdul Aziz Khan seemed to have migrated to Pakistan. Consequently, the Deputy Custodian took steps to declare Abdul Aziz Khan an evacuee. In that connection the appellant received notice from the Deputy Custodian in December 1950 under s. 7 of the Act asking him to show cause why the land should not be declared evacuee property. Though....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ereof in his favour. The suit was resisted by the Custodian and the main contention raised on his behalf was that the suit was barred under s. 46 of the Act. The Subordinate Judge however held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (No. 4 of 1882) and that the civil court had jurisdiction inasmuch as the sale had taken place before 1947. The Custodian then went in appeal to the High Court, and the only question raised there was that the suit was barred under s. 46 of the Act. The High Court reversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge and held that the appellant had been given notice under S. 7 of the Act in December 1950 and did not appear before the Deputy Custodian with the result tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cted to appear before him and it was in those circumstances that the Deputy Custodian declared the property to be evacuee property. That order of the Deputy Custodian could be taken in appeal under s. 24 by the appellant to the authorities provided under the Act, and if necessary the appellant could also go in revision to the Custodian General under s. 27. The scheme of the Act clearly is that where the property admittedly belongs to the evacuee any person claiming the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4 property or any interest or right therein has on receipt of a notice under s. 7(1) to appear before the authorities entitled to deal with the matter under the Act. Any person aggrieved by an order of such an authority mad....