Decided on September 11,1950

Thakar Das Labhu Ram And Anr. Appellant
Evacuee Property And Anr. Respondents


Kapur, J. - (1.) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of Harnam Singh J., affirming an order passed by the Additional Custodian affirming a lease in favour of Govind Ram Jaggi and cancelling the order of allotment passed in favour of Firm Thakar Dass Piyare Lall.
(2.) ON 10 -9 -1947, Mohammad Nawab, Proprietor of Messrs. Ahmed Bux and Sons, granted a lease for eleven months from 10 -9 -1047 to 10 -8 -1948, of the premises in dispute, Nos. 5565 and 5565/1, situate in Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantonment, consisting of a house and shop, to Govind Ram Jaggi, who on 10 -2 -1948, applied for confirmation of the lease. On 15 -11 -1948, by an order purporting to have been passed by the Financial Commissioner Mr. Thapar, the property in dispute was allotted to firm Thakar Dass Piyare Lal. The order was signed by one Mr. Balwant Singh, Under -Secretary to Government, and says that the Financial Commissioner has allotted the whole of the premises (now) in dispute to Messrs. Thakar Dass Piyaro Lal, who were already in possession of No. 5565. On 11 -8 -1040, the Additional Custodian Mr. Parshotam Lal passed an order confirming the lease which had been granted in favour of Govind Ram Jaggi and also by the same order cancelled the allotment which had been made in favour of Messrs. Thakar Dass Piyare Lal on two grounds: (1) that the allotment was made in ignorance of the proceedings which were pending before -the Custodian for confirmation of the lease and (2) as the lease was being confirmed the allotment would 'stand cancelled." Against this order an appeal was brought to this Court and was decided by Harnam Singh J., who, as I have said before, affirmed the order of Mr. Parshotam Lal, and against this judgment an appeal under Clause 10, Letters Patent, is filed.
(3.) THE first point taken by the learned advocate for the Appellant is that the finding of the learned Judge that he had no right of appeal is erroneous. His submission is that as a consequence of the confirmation of the lease he would be losing the rights that he has got under the allotment, which is thereby being cancelled, and he contended that he as a person aggrieved within the meaning of the term as used in Section 30 of Ordinaries -IX [9] of 1949. Relying on Ex parte Sidebotham, (1880) 14 Ch. D. 458 : (49 L.J. Bk. 41), and other rulings the learned Judge has held that ho was not a person aggrieved. James L.J. has in that case observed: The words 'person aggrieved ' do not really mean a man who is disappointed of benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made. A. 'person aggrieved' must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something. The learned advocate's submission is that this is too restricted a meaning to be given to the words "person aggrieved" and he has relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court in Narasimham v. Ramayya : A.I.R. 1950 Mad. 492 : (1950 -1 M.L.J. 484 F.B.), where an insolvent as an "aggrieved person" was allowed to appeal against an order under Section 68, Insolvency, questioning the acts of the Official Receiver. In that case Viswanatha Sastri J. observed at p. 501: If there is a flagrant case of a sale by the receiver for a gross under -value, if a sale or lease is granted secretly and without public notice.... if the property sold is so incorrectly described as to mislead purchasers into thinking that its value is negligible when in fact it is valuable, in cases like these the insolvent is an aggrieved person and would, in our opinion, have a remedy by way of an application to the Court under Section 68 and an appeal under Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act. In such cases the insolvent's rights to the surplus estate or the proceeds of the state after paying off the debts and to obtain an annulment of the adjudication or an absolute discharge under Sections 41 and 42 of Act V. [5] of 1920 by payment of eight annas in the rupee, is prejudiced and the insolvent is an 'aggrieved person'. The extreme contention of the Respondent that even in such cases the insolvent his no legal grievance and has no right to complain to the Court against the act of the official receiver would, if accepted, reduce him to the position of a poison who is a civilitur morthus. Such, however, is not his position in the eye of law.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.