RAM AUTAR Vs. DEPUTY CUSTODIAN JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE facts giving 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. 7. 48 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 3lst 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.) THE present case appears to be covered by sec. 17, sub-sec. (2) of the Act. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 17 reads as follows: - "where, after the 1st day of March, 1947 any evacuee property which has vested in the Custodian or is deemed to have vested in the Custodian under the provisions of this Act has been sold in execution of any decree or order of any Court or other authority, the sale shall be set aside if an application in that behalf has been made by the Custodian to such Court or authority on or before the 17th day of October, 1950. " It, therefore, enables the Custodian to apply for setting aside of sales effected before the commencement of the Act by putting an application on or before the 17th day of October, 1950. THE section gives ample time to the Custodian to acquaint himself with the facts and make an application for setting aside the court sale in due course. It clearly follows from the above that sales of properties of persons subsequently declared to be evacuees, must stand if the sales are not set aside under the provisions of this subsection. When sales remain intact and cannot be allowed to be disturbed, it must also follow that the legislature could never contemplate the declaration of the sale proceeds as evacuee property. Very absurd results will follow, if, while sales are to be recognised, the sale proceeds could be permitted to be reached by the Custodian, unless something was left out of the proceeds for payment the evacuee judgment-debtors. THE following illustration may be usefully be given at this stage.