SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(SC) 413

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JASWANT SINGH AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ.
Sir Fazalbhopy Currimbhoy etc., Appellants
Versus
The Official Trustee of Maharashtra and others, etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 722, 1016 and 1221 of 1967, D/- 12-12-1978.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. D. Mehta and D. N. Mishra, Advocates, for Appellant in C. A. No. 722 of 1967; MR. S. T. Desai, Sr. Advocate (Mr. R. B. Datar and Girish Chandra, Advocates with him) (for Nos. 3 & 65) in C. A. No. 722 of 1967; Mr. I. N. Shorff and H. S. Parihar, Advocates (for No. 48) in C. A. No. 722 of 1967 and Mr. S. T. Desai, Sr. Advocate (Mr. Girish Chandra, Advocate with him) (for No. 63) in C. A. No. 1221 of 1967, for Respondents; Mr. S. T. Deasi, Sr. Advocate (Mr. R. B. Datar, Advocate, with him), for Appellant and Respondent No. 40 in C. A. No. 1016 of 1967; Mr. I. N. Shroff and H. S. Parihar, Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 27-28 in C. A. No. 1016 of 1967 and also for Appellant in C. A. No. 1221 of 1967.

Advocates:
D.N.Mishra, GIRISH CHANDRA, H.S.PARIHAR, I.M.SHROFF, K.D.MEHTA, R.B.DATAR, S.T.DESAI

Headnote:

Defence of India Rules, 1962 – Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy (Repealing & Distribution of Trust Properties) Act, 1959 – Section 7 – Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 – Issues of Properties Possession – Appeals, on certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction against orders and directions issued by a learned single Judge of the High Court. on a petition filed by the Official Trustee of Maharashtra in regard to the properties of the former Sir Currinmbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust. – Held, It was contended by learned counsel for Sir Fazalbhoy Currimbhoy that by virtue of the Notification, the trust properties which could be rightfully claimed by the Fourth Baronet would stand vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property under the Defence of India Rules, 1962. – For that reason, it is said, the Fourth Baronet cannot be held entitled to the trust properties, and therefore they would not vest in the Custodian of Evacuee Property. – The record before us does not show that the Custodian of Enemy Property filed any claim before the Official Trustee under sub-sec. (1) of S. 7 of the Repealing Act and, consequently, court consider it inappropriate to enter into this matter. – Division Bench of the High Court has held that the Custodian of Evacuee Property is entitled to be paid a sum of Rs. 1,334.06 representing the unpaid amount of the net income of the trust properties up to March 14, 1960. – This finding has not been challenged, and court affirm it. – Official Trustee has pointed out that various liabilities on account of Income-tax, Wealth-tax, House tax and other taxes are outstanding in respect of the trust properties. – He prays for directions that those tax liabilities be allowed to be cleared before the trust properties are transferred by him. He also points out that there are Sees, charges, costs and other expanses to be paid off. – Court propose to remand the case to the High Court for making necessary orders in that regard after satisfying it self as to the existence and amount of these liabilities. – Order Accordingly

Judgment

PHATAK, J.:- These appeals, on certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, are directed against the judgment and order dated August 9, 1966 passed by the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction against orders and directions issued by a learned single Judge of the High Court. on a petition filed by the Official Trustee of Maharashtra in regard to the properties of the former Sir Currinmbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust.

2. On July 20, 1911, His Majesty King George V issued Letters Patent conferring the "dignity, state and degree" of a Baronet of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim of Bombay and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten. In order to provide for the upkeep and dignity of the Baronetcy, the then Governor General of India in Council enacted the Sir Currimbhpoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to simple as "the Baronetcy Act") by virtue of which considerable properties belonging to Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim were settled upon the trusts and for the purposes, declared in the Act. The trust was created by statute at the instance of Sir Currimbphoy Ebrahim. The Trustees, who included the Baronet for the time being and three officials of the Government of Bombay designated by their office, were constituted as a Corporation with perpetual succession and a common seal for the purpose of executing the trusts, powers and purposes of the Act. By virtue of Section 8 of the Baronetcy Act, the residue of the income from the properties settled under trust, after payment to the credit of a Sinking Fund and a Repairs Fund, and payment of rates, taxes and cost of ordinary repairs in respect of buildings comprising the trust properties was to be paid to the First Baronet and the heir male of his body who would for the time being have succeeded to the title of Baronet. The successive Baronets were also entitled in the circumstances mentioned in Section 10 to the use and benefit of additional hereditaments vesting in the Corporation. Section 27 provided for the vesting of the trust properties and funds "upon failure and in default of heirs male of the body of the last Baronet."

3. The First Baronet, Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim, died on May 29, 1924 leaving behind a Will dated October 22, 1916 in respect of certain other properties. His eldest son, Mohamedbhoy, assumed the title and became the Second Baronet. Mohamedbhoy died on March 31, 1928. He was succeeded by his son, Husseinbhoy, who became the Third Baronet.

4. The Third Baronet migrated to Pakistan some time between 1947 and September, 1949. On September 29, 1949 he was declared an evacuee under the Bombay Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1949, and certain properties belonging to him were declared vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property by an order of that date. On November 15, 1949, a notification was issued under sub-sec. (1) of S. 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Properties Ordinance, 1949 notifying two further immovable properties as well as the right, title and interest of the Third Baronet in the Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust as evacuee property vesting in the Custodian of Evacuee Property. An appeal by the Third Baronet against the orders dated September 29, 1949 and November 15, 1949 was dismissed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property on February 13, 1950.

5. Two years later, on March 4, 1952, the Third Baronet died in Pakistan. He was succeeded by his son, Mohamedbhoy, as the Fourth Baronet. It seems that Mohamedbhoy was at the time residing in India, but shortly thereafter he left for Pakistan. On June 10, 1952, the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property made an order declaring the Fourth Baronet an evacuee under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and directing that his beneficial interest in the Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust be notified as evacuee property. Therefore, on June 16, 1952 a notification was issued under sub-sec. (3) of S. 7












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top