| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 1723 1961 SLD 1723 = 1961 PLD 6 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil appeal No. 24 of 1958, decided on 16th November 1960.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., Amiruddin Ahmad, S. A. Rahman and Fazle Akbar, JJ
M. Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by M. A. Rahman Attorney for Appellant. Mahmud Ali, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court (Ghias Muhammad Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Siddiq & Company Attorneys for
Respondent No. 1. Karam Elahi Chauhan, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Kamal Mustafa Attorney for
Respondent No. 2. Mazharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Maqbul Ahmad Attorney for
Respondent No. 3.
Civil appeal No. 24 of 1958, decided on 16th November 1960.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., Amiruddin Ahmad, S. A. Rahman and Fazle Akbar, JJ
M. Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by M. A. Rahman Attorney for Appellant. Mahmud Ali, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court (Ghias Muhammad Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Siddiq & Company Attorneys for
Respondent No. 1. Karam Elahi Chauhan, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Kamal Mustafa Attorney for
Respondent No. 2. Mazharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Maqbul Ahmad Attorney for
Respondent No. 3.
Rai Bahadur MOHAN SINGH OBEROI-Appellant
VERSUS
Rai Bahadur JODHA MAL KUTHALIA, THE CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE, AND (3) THE ASSOCIATED HOTELS OF INDIA LTD. -Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section:
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 30th January 1956, in Civil Miscellaneous in Regular First Appeal No. 31 of 1949). Parties-Suit by plaintiffs A and M against J-Trial Court specifically dismissing suit so far as A was concerned, but decreeing M's suit-J appealing, and impleading A as well "by way of abundant caution and not of legal necessity"-A not entitled to found any legal rights or interests "solely upon such impleading "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, r. 4. Transfer of Evacuee Deposits Act (VI of 1954), S. 4--Absolute duty of Civil Court etc. to transfer deposit when no party interested in deposit is a Muslim and when Court does not find that any such person is not an evacuee-Court to perform its duty irrespective of laws relating to Administration of Evacuee Property Court has jurisdiction to decide, to exclusion of powers of Custodian tinder general law, whether all interests in deposit are held by evacuees. The necessary conditions for a Civil or a Revenue Court or a Court of Wards to act under section 4, Transfer of Evacuee Deposits Act (VI of 1954), appear to be, firstly, that as to the deposit, no party interested therein should be a Muslim, and, secondly, that the Court should not find or hold the opinion that "any of the persons interested in a deposit is not an evacuee". When these two conditions are satisfied, an absolute duty devolves upon the Court that the Court shall, as soon as may be . . . . transfer the deposit along with the record relating thereto, to such authorised officer or authority in India as the Central Government may by general or special order specify in this behalf. The absolute duty which this section imposes upon a Court when the two conditions indicated above have been satisfied, is to be performed irrespective of the operation of any provision of the Act relating to the Administration of Evacuee property. Unless all the provisions of the laws relating to the Administration of Evacuee property be avoided, such a transfer as is enjoined by section 4 cannot possibly take place. The…