Back
ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Meer Baksh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
2. The predecessor-in-title of the respondents who was the holder of the property was one Sultan Mohammad. The appellant-State contended that the property held by the said person is an evacuee property within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for short “the 1950 Act”) as the said Sultan Mohammad was an evacuee within the meaning of clause (d) of Section 2 of the 1950 Act.
3. After having perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we find the learned Judge has held that it was categorically admitted by the State in its reply that the said Sultan Mohammad never left for Pakistan. It is not shown to us that the reply does not contain such admission. Therefore, the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that the property held by Sultan Mohammad could not have been declared as an evacuee property and hence, the action of declaring his property as an evacuee property was set aside. An appeal was carried by the appellants to the Division Bench of the High Court by the appellants. In paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment, the appeal Bench has noted thus:
Redemption of mortgage – Through Legal Representatives, there is no period to seek redemption of a usufructuary mortgage.
Ownership rights acquired prior to partition are valid, and the jurisdiction of Civil Courts remains intact if property is not declared evacuee property by the custodian.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Y. P. Rathore For the Respondent : Ranjeet Sen
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
