9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of whether the property in question is an evacuee property and the status of Mrs. Naqvi as an evacuee under the relevant Ordinance.
The judgment pertains to a case where Mrs. Naqvi, the wife of a Police official, purchased a property in 1947 in Lucknow, United Provinces, and later sold it in 1962. The property was declared as an evacuee property under the United Provinces Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949. The main issue was whether Mrs. Naqvi qualified as an evacuee under the Ordinance. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Ordinance, specifically clauses 2(c)(i) and 2(c)(ii), to determine Mrs. Naqvi's evacuee status. The Division Bench initially held that she did not meet the criteria under clause 2(c)(i) but did not consider clause 2(c)(ii). However, the Court concluded that Mrs. Naqvi was an evacuee under clause 2(c)(ii) as she had migrated to Pakistan from Teheran after March 1, 1947, making the property in question an evacuee property u/s 5 of the Ordinance. The judgment further discussed the legal implications of the property being classified as an evacuee property. It highlighted that the property automatically vested in the Custodian as per the provisions of the United Provinces Ordinance No. 1 of 1949, even after its repeal by the Central Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The Court emphasized that the property continued to vest in the Custodian without the need for further action under section 7 of the Act, as it had already vested under the repealed Ordinance. The Court rejected the argument that prior communication stating the property was not an evacuee property affected this vesting process, citing legal precedents that emphasized strict adherence to statutory provisions. Regarding the sum of Rs. 42,000 paid by the respondent to Mrs. Naqvi and deposited in the bank, the Court held that it could not be considered as an evacuee property alongside the disputed property. The Court ruled that this sum must be held in trust for the respondent, allowing them to withdraw the amount along with any accrued interest. The judgment concluded by allowing the appeal and issuing the necessary directions without any order on costs.
|
