Case: Har Govind Vs. Aziz Ahmad &amp; Anr

On June 16, 1948 the appellant entered into an agreement with Aziz Ahmed Khan--respondent No. I--for the sale of certain properties comprising houses and plots in the town of Bareilley. The sale consideration of Rs. 1, 45, 000/- was stated have been already paid by the appellant to the vendor. Subsequently disputes arose between the vendor and the appellant regarding the completion of the sale. These disputes were refered to the arbitration of Shri R.R. Agarwal who gave an award on August 30, 1949 which was made a rule of the court on November 30, 1949. A decree on the basis of the award was granted in favour of the appellant.Sometimes after November 22, 1949 the vendor Aziz Ahmed Khan left India for Pakistan. On December 7, 1950 the appellant moved the Deputy Custodian (Judicial) Meerut Circle for confirmation of the transfer under s. 38 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, (Ordinance No. 27 of 1949), or under s. 40 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950 (Act 31 of 1950). On 9th May 1951 the Deputy Custodian accorded confirmation. The Additional Custodian, however, took suo motu action in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Custodian. On April 4, 1952 the appellant filed an application for execution of the decree passed on the basis of the award. On May 10, 1952 objections were filed on behalf of the Custodian to the execution. The District Judge held that the award made on August 30, 1949 could not have the effect of transferring the properties as the approval of the Collector had not been obtained under the notification dated July 29, 1949 which had been issued under s. 26 of U.P. Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance No. 1 of 1949 and that on the date of the decree the transfer of properties could not be effected unless confirmed by the Custodian. It was further held by him that no interest by way of charge in favour of the appellant had been created on the properties in dispute. He was further of the view that s. 17(1) of the Central Act of 1950 created a bar to execution of the decree. The Execution application was consequentlyappellant filed an appeal to the High Court which was dismissed. When the appeal came up for hearing before this Court on February 22, 1968 it was. considered expedient to have further findings on certain points. The following questions were therefore framed and remitted to the High Court for thatthe date on which Aziz Ahmed Khan migrated to Pakistan.(2) whether the properties of Aziz Ahmed Khan vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property under U.P. Ordinance 1 of 1949 or Central Ordinance 12 of 1949 as made applicable to the State of U.P. by U.P. Ordinance 20 of 1949 or under the Central Ordinance 27 of 1949 or under Central Act ofHigh Court remitted these matters to the District Judge. His finding on the first question was that Aziz Ahmed Khan had migrated to Pakistan on some date after November 22, 1949. On the second question he found that Aziz Ahmed Khans properties did not vest in the Custodian of Evacuee Property under any of the Ordinances or under the Central Act 31 of 1950. Certain additional evidence was produced before the High Court. The High Court expressed agreement with the conclusions of the District Judge on both the points. It may be mentioned that on certain subsidiary points the. learned District Judge had also found that it had not been proved that a valid declaration under s. 7(1) of the Central Ordinance 27 of 1949 or of the corresponding provision in the Central Act 31 of 1950 was made for declaring Aziz Ahmed Khan an evacuee. In the opinion of the learned Judge such a declaration was necessary if his properties were to be declared evacuee properties.

Court's reasoning:
In the present case, however, Aziz Ahmed Khan migrated to Pakistan after November 22, 1949. At that point of time it was Central Ordinance 27 of 1949 which was in force. It appears highly doubtful that the respondent could take advantage of the. provisions of automatic vesting contained in U.P. Ordinance 1 ofis, however, a serious hurdle in the way of the appel- lant even when the provisions of Central Ordinance 27 of 1949 or the Central Act 31 of 1950 are taken into consideration. Section 38(1) of that Ordinance provided that no transfer of any right or interest in any property after the 14th day of August 1947 by or on behalf of an evacuee or by or on behalf of a person who had become an evacuee after the date of the transfer shall be effective so as to confer any rights or remedies on the parties to such transfer unless it was confirmed by the Custodian. The provision of s. 40 of the Central Act 31 of 1950 were similar though there was a certain change in theboth these enactments transfer of property was ineffective unless confirmed by the Custodian even if it was made by a person who became an evacuee after the date of the transfer. It was not necessary that the property should have been declared or notified to be evacuee property before the aforesaid provisions were attracted. Under s. 40(1) of the Act, the transfer was to be ineffective in both eventualities; (1) if the transferor became an evacuee within the meaning of s. 2 after the transfer or (2) if the transferors property had been declared or notified to. be evacuee property. It is abundantly clear that if Aziz Ahmed Khan became an evacuee even after the transfer. s. 38(1) of the Ordinance and s. 40(1) of the Act becameAhmed Khan became an evacuee within the meaning of the above definition.It was necessary, therefore, for the appellant to have obtained the confirmation of the Custodian in respect of the transfer which had been made by Aziz Ahmed Khan in his favour of the properties in question. The Additional Custodian declined to confirm the transfer and thus the condition precedent for the transfer to become effective remained unsatisfied. It is significant that even in the award which formed the basis of the decree it had been provided "the second party (Aziz Ahmed Khan) is hereby directed to execute the necessary documents in respect of the transfer by him of the properties referred to above within one month from the date of the receipt of the confirmation or approval according to law failing which the first party will, at his option, get the same executed and registered through court on the basis of this award which would be made a rule of the court. Therefore according to the award the confirmation or approval of the Custodian had to be obtained before the transfer documents were to be executed and completed in accordance with law. It was incumbent on the appellant to obtain the confirmation order before he could ask for any further steps to be taken by the courts in the matter of execution and registration of the transfer deed. Under s. 39 of the Central Ordinance 27 of 1949 no document could be registered of the nature mentioned in s. 38 unless the Custodian had confirmed the transfer. Similar provisions were contained in s. 40 of the Central Act 31 of 1950. The prayer in the Execution Application that the court might grant assistance "by execution of sale deed under the enabling para 5 of the Decree" could not be entertained or acceded to by the ExecutingSardana will force the payments against the properties referred to above and these properties are hereby charged with this claim and Sri Sardana will have his remedies to enforce the payment of the above claim against all other properties of the second party and also against his person."