| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 4667 = 1965 SLD 4667 = 1965 PLD 252 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Petition No. 580 of -1963, decided on 18th May 1964.
Presented By: Qadeeruddin Ahmad, J
Janoki Ammal v. Narayansami (1916) 43 I A 209 ref. Akhtar Mahmood for Petitioner. Naimuddin for A. A: G. for
Respondent No. 1. S. M. Raza for
Respondent No. 2.
Petition No. 580 of -1963, decided on 18th May 1964.
Presented By: Qadeeruddin Ahmad, J
Janoki Ammal v. Narayansami (1916) 43 I A 209 ref. Akhtar Mahmood for Petitioner. Naimuddin for A. A: G. for
Respondent No. 1. S. M. Raza for
Respondent No. 2.
ISSAR BAI alias KISHAN BAI-Petitioner
VERSUS
SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD AND KHAIRPUR DIVISIONS AND ANOTHER---- Respondents
Law: Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957)
Section: 22
Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957)----S. 22-Declaration of person as non-evacuee Property belonging to him or her automatically becomes non evacuee-Declaration with respect to non-evacuee character of person, however, in proceeding other than one under S. 22-Property of such person could be treated evacuee-Order, obtained by him in his favour at earlier date in proceeding where his status was not relevant could not be final-Daughter has not even vested interest in property of Hindu during lifetime of his widow-Assistant Custodian declaring daughter to be non-evacuee with reference to future date after death of widow-Order, held, without jurisdiction. Dates of hearing: 4th and 6th May 1964. JUDGMENT The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi, dated the 12th of June 1963, by which the Commissioner has set aside the order of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Hyderabad, dated the 9th of July 1961. The latter officer had ordered the petitioner on the 25th of July 1960, to deposit Rs. 3,000.00 towards the redemption of the mortgage of her house, to which this dispute relates, as she had mortgaged it to an evacuee person and he had also cancelled the provisional transfer order relating to the house which had been made in favour of respondent No. 2 on the 25th of July 1960. The effect of the impugned order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi is that the transfer in favour of respondent No. 2 remains intact and the house of the petitioner continues to be an evacuee property. 2. Counsel for the parties have rendered valuable assistance to this Court in understanding the complicated history of the litigation. It is not necessary to set out all the facts that have been stated by counsel, because the main facts which are relevant to this petition are that the house is situated in Hyderabad and was allotted to one Yasin in 1947 by the proper authorities. That allotment was not made under the Evacuee Laws, which came into force later on. After the enforcement of those laws, the occupants…