MOTANDAS Vs. GOPALDAS BASARMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE findings which are not challenged in this revision are as follows. The house in suit is an evacuee property. It was purchased by the plaintiffs in auction held by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The auction took place on 13-7-57 and the sale certificate was issued on 25-7-59. The defendant is a displaced person and is also entitled to the benefit of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954.

(2.) THE point in dispute is whether the period of two years up to which the defendant is liable to remain in the house in question starts from the date of auction i. e. from 13-7-57 or from the date on which the sale certificate is issued i. e. on 25-7-59. The trial court has held that it starts from 25-7-59, hence this revision has been filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE applicant relied on Section 65 of the C. P. Code which says that after the sale has become absolute the property is deemed to have vested in the purchaser on the date of auction. I do not think that analogy can be made applicable in this case. The suit was not according to the C. P. Code. It was under a particular Act and therefore the rules that have been framed under that Act should apply.