JUDGEMENT :- This is a plaintiff's 2nd appeal whose suit for declaration to the effect that she and defendants. Nos. 7 and 8 (respondents nos. 7 and 8) were the owners in possession of the suit property and that the other defendants had no title or interest therein stands dismissed in the first appeal by the District Judge of Barabanki, it having been decreed by the Munsif of Barabanki in whose court it was instituted.

2. Smt. Israr Fatima, the plaintiff-appellant, is related to defendants-respondents nos. 7 to 9 as would appear from the following pedigree the property belonged to

Her case was that the property belonged to Ziaul Husain and Shifaul Husain the two brothers, and even though the plaintiff was the daughter of Ziaul Husain, Shifaul Husain treated her as her daughter and gifted his half share in his property to her, he thus became owner of the property to the extent of one-half share belonging to Shifaul Husain and 1/7th of the one-half belonging to Ziaul Husain, her total share being 4/7.

3. Wajahat Husain migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947. There was a notification in the National Herald in April 1956 to the effect that the house of Wajahat Husain in Zaidpur was to be auctioned by the Managing Officer, Barabanki. No notice of any kind was served on her at any time indicating that the property in question had been declared as evacuee property. Her case was that there was no declaration to the effect that the property was evacuee property and if there was one. it was invalid on account of U.P. Ordinance 1 of 1949 being declared void by the Allahabad High Court in 1957. It was also asserted that the property was never described any where a belonging to Wajahat Husain. The suit, therefore, had to be filed as the plaintiff apprehended that defendants Nos. 1 to 6, namely, the Custodian Evacuee property, the Managing Officer Barabanki the Regional Settlement Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow the Custodian General, Evacuee property. New Delhi, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, India, New Delhi and the Competent Officer U.P., Lucknow, would get the property auctioned and this will adversely affect the interest of the plaintiff.

4. The suit was contested only by defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 5 who are respondents Nos. 1, 4 and 5 to this appeal.

5. They contended that the property had been taken over by the Custodian as evacuee property in 1949, that it had also been acquired by the Union Government under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Act XLIV of 1954), that Rifaul Husain and Wafaul Husain filed an objection on the 1st of June, 1949 before the Deputy Commissioner, Barabanki which failed, that the plaintiff was the daughter of Ziaul Husain and that Shifaul Husain had no right or title in the disputed property so as to have donated it to her and that the suit was barred by the provisions of Act 1 of 1960 and by the provisions of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.

6. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, but the appeal filed by defendants Nos. 1 to 6 was allowed by the District Judge of Barabanki on the ground that the property had vested in the Custodian under Section 5 of U.P. Ordinance 1 of 1949 which became retrospectively valid by the introduction of Section 8(2A) into the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (Act XXXI of 1950) by way of an amendment by the Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1960 (Act 1 of 1960).

7. The learned District Judge did not enter into the merits of the case as to whether the appellant had any interest in the property at all which she claimed.

8. The appeal has been argued before me at length Shri Mohammad Husain on behalf of the appellant and Sri Wadhawani on behalf of the respondents have taken me through all the relevant Acts and Ordinances and the relevant case law to show as to how far some of the Ordinances which had been declared void by the High Court in 1957 have been validated by Central Act 1 of 1960 and what is the effect of their valida

Click Here to Read the rest of this document