HAR GOVIND Vs. AZIZ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court confirming the order of the District Judge dismissing in execution application filed by the appellant.

(2.) On June 16, 1948 the appellant entered into an agreement with Aziz Ahmed Khan respondent No. 1 for the sale of certain properties comprising houses and plots in the town of Bareilly. The sale consideration of Rs. 1,45,000 was stated to have been already paid by the appellant to the vendor. Subsequently disputes arose between the vendors and the appellant regarding the completion of the sale. These disputes were referred to the arbitration of Shri R. R. Agarwal who gave an award on August 30, 1949, which was made a rule of the Court on November 30, 1949. A decree on the basis of the award was granted in favour of the appellant.

(3.) Sometime after November 22, 1949 the vendor Aziz Ahmed Khan left India for Pakistan. On December 7, 1950 the appellant moved the Deputy Custodian (Judicial) Meerut Circle for confirmation of the transfer under Section 38 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance No. 27 of 1949) or under Section 40 if the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950 (Act 31 of 1950). On 9th May 1951 the Deputy Custodian accorded confirmation. The Additional Custodian, however, took suo motu action in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Custodian. On April 4, 1952 the appellant filed an application for execution of the decree passed on the basis of the award. On May 10, 1952 objections were filed on behalf of the Custodian of the execution. The District Judge held that the award made on August 30, 1949 could not have the effect of transferring the properties as the approval of the Collector had not been obtained under the notification dated July 29, 1949 which had been issued under Section 26 of U. P. Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance No. 1 of 1949 and that on the date of the decree the transfer of properties could not be effected unless confirmed by the Custodian. It was held by him that no interest by way of charge in favour of the appellant had been created on the properties in dispute. He was further of the view that Section 17 (1) of the Central Act 31 of 1950 created a bar to execution of the decree. The execution application was consequently dismissed.