AHMEDBHAI ABDULKADAR Vs. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AND REGIONAL SETTLEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the suit filed by the appellant to obtain a decree for a declaration that the order passed by the Assistant Custodian. Junagadh on 5th April, 1950 declaring him to be an evacuee, and his properties evacuee properties, as illegal, invalid and ultra vires and for an injunction restraining the competent officer. Evacuee interest from doing certain acts. The said suit was filed in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Junagadh where the same was registered as special Civil Suit No. 12 of 1960.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the plaintiff was the owner of one-half share in two immoveable properties one situated at Junagadh and the other at Mangrol. He was also the owner of one-half share in a business concern carried on in the name and style of "Noorbhai Valibhai" at Junagadh. Sometime after the partition of the country i.e., on 12th July, 1949 the plaintiff applied to the First Class Magistrate. Junagadh for a "no objection" certificate on the ground that he wanted to visit Macca on a pilgrimage along with his sister who was to join him from Karachi. It is found from the record of the case that on this application of the plaintiff the magistrate concerned issued a certificate on 18th July, 1949 that the plaintiff was "a bona fide subject of Junagadh District". The plaintiff claims that thereafter he went to Macca but on his return he went to Karachi to leave his sister there. According to the plaintiff, his sister thereafter fell ill and therefore he had to stay on at Karachi. During that stay permit system was enforced with the result that he could not return to India soon. According to the plaintiff he was thus detained in Pakistan for about two years and six to nine months.

(3.) The plaintiff came to India on a temporary permit: but on plaintiff's application dated 7th August, 1953, the Government of Saurastra allowed him to stay in India subject to the condition that Evacuee proceedings already launched or proposed to be launched would not be affected "and that the plaintiff would have therefore, no claim over the properties which are in possession of Assistant Custodian".