RAMAUTAR SITARAM Vs. DY CUSTODIANJAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by the decree-holder Ramautar raise identical questions and shall be disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) The facts Riving rise to them are briefly as follows: Ramautar, the decree- holder had two money decrees; one for Rs. 6,350/- and costs passed on 26-748 and the other for Rs. 6,200/- and costs passed on 17-5-48, in his favour by the District Judge, Sambhar Shamlat. He took out execution proceedings in respect of both these decrees on 19-1-49 for which execution cases Nos. 8 and 9 of 1950 were registered. The decree-holder got some immovable property attached. However, the same property had been attached earlier in the execution of a decree in favour of firm Kapoor Chand against the same, judgment-debtors in execution case No. 3 of 1950. Proceedings for sale naturally continued in the execution case of Kapoor Chand and the sale of the property was knocked down on 29th of May, 1949, and the final bid was accepted by the court on 31st of May, 1949. The sale was confirmed on 15th of July, 1949, and it was ordered by the execution court that the sale proceeds be ratably distributed amongst the various decree-holders. The decree-holder Ramautar thus became entitled to realise out of the sale proceeds such amounts as may be ultimately found, on calculation, due to him in connection with his two decrees.

(3.) For some reason or the other, the precise amounts payable to the various decree-holders could not be determined and paid to them, and the execution proceedings were subsequently transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur. In the latter Court, on 22nd of September, 1952, Shri Jugal Kishore, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Deputy Custodian, Jaipur, submitted an application praying that the Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property, Jaipur, may be added as a party in the execution proceedings. It was alleged in the application that Manzoor AH and Imtiaz Ali, the judgment- debtors, being evacuees, a question relating to the property of the evacuees was involved in the proceedings, and as such, the Deputy Custodian was a necessary party. The Court, vide its order dated 14th of November, 1952, accepted the application and directed the addition of the Deputy Custodian as a party. On 19th of December. 1952, Shri Jugal Kishore, Advocate, on behalf of the Deputy Custodian filed objections in the execution proceedings challenging the sale of the property. It was urged in the first instance that the property in dispute having vested in the Custodian before the sale by the civil court, the said sale was null and void. It was also added that the sale Having been effected without any notice or information to the Deputy Custodian was null and void on that ground also. Alternatively, it was claimed that the sale proceeds deposited in the Court are evacuee property, find the Custodian is entitled to receive them. Finally, the Additional Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property Jaipur, passed an order on 18th of August, 1953, declaring Imtiaz Ali as evacuee and the sale proceeds received from his property as evacuee property. Intimating his decision to the execution court, the Additional Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property, Jaipur, requested the Court to remit to him the amount of the sale proceeds. The claim on behalf of the Custodian was resisted by the various decree-holder claiming retable distribution, including the present appellant Ramautar. Their contention was that an order for ratable distribution having been passed, the property in money vested in the various decree-holders, and the Deputy Custodian had no jurisdiction to declare the amount, lying in Court on behalf of the decree-holders, as evacuee property. The validity and legality of the order of the Additional Deputy Custodian dated 18-8-1953 was questioned by them mainly on the around that the order of the Additional Deputy Custodian was passed without notice to them. The execution Court allowed the claim, of the Deputy Custodian and overruled the opposition of the decree-holders. It was of the opinion that under Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. 1950. the Court had no jurisdiction. to entertain and adjudicate upon any question, whether any property, or any right to or interest in any property is or is not evacuee property, and it cannot question the legality of any action taken by the Custodian. He directed that the sale proceeds shall be sent to the Deputy Custodian and directed the decree-holders to file their claims, if any, before him. Ramautar decree-holder has filed the present appeals challenging the orders of the District Judge, Jaipur.