The second appeal was dismissed. Upholding the lower courts' findings that the mortgagor's interest was extinguished and the property validly vested in the Custodian, the court ruled that the competent officer's subsequent sale of the same property to the appellant was invalid.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No.2832 of 1983 (O&M) Date of decision:17.01.2012
Amar Chand son of Shri Radha Kishan, resident of Dassuya, District Hoshiarpur.
....Plaintiff/Appellant.
versus
Smt. Kaushalya Devi and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: None.
K.Kannan, J.
Regular Second Appeal No.2832 of 1983 (O&M) - 2 -
originally mortgaged. Under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (in short, 'the 1951 Act'), the competent officer effected the sale of the property in favour of the plaintiff Amar Chand on 13.08.1969 but a portion of the property demarcated by ABCDEF in the plan comprising of an extent of 2 kanals and 9 marlas was claimed by the plaintiff to have been encroached by the defendants. The suit had been filed for declaration and for recovery of possession. The defendants took a plea that the property could not have been validly transferred by the competent officer under the 1951 Act, since the property had become vested with the Custodian General under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954 and sold to Bhagwan Dass. The defendants claimed the property under Bhagwan Dass.
Regular Second Appeal No.2832 of 1983 (O&M) - 3 -
Court however rejected the contention of the defendants that the Civil Court was not competent to decide the issue of title.
Regular Second Appeal No.2832 of 1983 (O&M) - 4 -
Dass in the year 1959-60 and, therefore, the sale of the very same property by the competent officer under the 1951 Act cannot give any valid title to the plaintiff.
Regular Second Appeal No.2832 of 1983 (O&M) - 5 -
property and even the Local Commissioner found the identity of the property claimed by the plaintiff under the sale executed by the competent officer and the property claimed by the defendants under the sale from Bhagwan Dass, who in turn claimed the property from the Custodian by virtue of auction in 1959 and the sale in the year 1960 were one and the same property. One thing becomes clear that the defendants were actually in possession of the property from the year 1959 and the sale which was made to the plaintiff in respect of the very same property was sought to be claimed back by the plaintiff for the first time only when the suit was instituted in the year 1971. The sale deed was issued on 29.09.1960 in favour of Bhagwan Dass. The District Judge had held that the mortgagee's interest itself had been extinguished by the expiry of 20 years and the property had become vested in the Custodian free of any obstruction. There was no mortgagee's interest still subsisting to make possible for the competent officer to make a valid claim in favour of the plaintiff. I would uphold the finding of the District Judge and find that the sale in favour of the plaintiff by the competent officer under the 1969 Act was not valid. It was immaterial that the defendants' application for review was not favourably considered but it was not on the merits of the contentions raised by the defendants that the competent officer had no right to sell the property, even if consent had been secured from the Custodian. The Custodian had no power to grant such a sanction for
Regular Second Appeal No.2832 of 1983 (O&M) - 6 -
sale when he had divested himself of the right of the property by offering the property for sale in auction and Bhagwan Dass had been declared to be the highest bidder and a sale deed was also made in his favour in the year 1960.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
17.01.2012 sanjeev
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal filed by the appellant who lost at trial and first appellate court survives favourable consideration.
Amar Chand
Smt. Kaushalya Devi and others
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
