MIR MAAZAM SULTAN Vs. MUR AFSAR SULTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that has been raised in this Second Appeal No. 268/62 difected against the Judgment and decree of the 2nd Additional Chief Judfe, city civil Court, Hyderabad dated 16-3-1962 in A. S. No 232/58, is that the' permission granted under Rule 26 of the Hyderabad Administration of Evacuee Property Regulation, 1358 Fasli (hereinafter referred to as Evacuee Property Regulation) did not require any confirmation under Rule 25 of the said Regulation, and the lower Courts erred in holding that this was a case which comes within the ambit of Rule 25 of the Regulation. THE facts necessary to appreciate the arguments may briefly be stated. THE appellant herein purchased the 1st respondent's share properties through registered sale deed dated 5-12-1358 F (7-9-1949). He applied for permission to the Civil Administrator as required under Rule 26 of the Regulation. This was granted under Ex. P-4 dated 12-11-1949, Later, the appellant filed an application before the Custodian under section 40 of Act XXX1/50 which was rejected by the Deputy Custodian on 13-2-1951. THE appellant then went in appeal to the Custodian who rejected the appeal on 4-8-51. A revision iiled by him before the Custodian General was also dismissed on 18-7-52. THEreupon, the appellant filed a Writ Petition which was also dismissed. Subsequently, he received a notice from the Custodian on 3-12-1953 directing him to pay rent in respect of the suit house. THE appellant thereupon filed a suit in the Court of the IVth Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for a declaration against the respondents: Respondent No. 1 being the Vendor; respondent No 2, the State of Hyderabad and respondent No. 3, the Union of India by Secretary, Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation. His main contention was that he had purchased the suit property with the permission of the Civil Administrator as required under Rule 26 of the then existing Regulation. THErefore, there was no question of confirmation of sale and the Custodian was debarred from taking action in respect of the suit property. THE suit was resisted by the Custodian mainly on the ground that the permission did not authorise the avacuee to dispose of his properties and, under section 40 of the subsequent Act, confirmation of sale had to be obtained, THE trial court dismissed the suit and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. THE second appeal was admitted,on the ground that an arguable question of law was involved viz. "Whether permission under rule 26 of the Regulation exempted the appellant from obtaining confirmation of sale as contemplated under rule 25 of the said Regulation." THE learned Counsel for the appellant with reference to rule 26 of theRegulation has urged that as the sale was effected with the permission of the Civil Administrator, there was no question of its subsequent confirmation. According to him, the subsequent proceedings taken by the appellant were the result of wrong advice rendered to him and in fact no such proceedings were necessary. THE Hyderabad Administration of Evacuee Property Regulation, 58F is in Urdu. Rule 26 of the said Regulation on translation reads as under: