Likewise, the application under Section 25 was also rejected.
Thereafter, the respond ents made two applications one under Section 8 on 14.3.1974 and another under Section 25 on 24.4.1974 to the Custodian.
Against the order of the Custodian General, the respond ents filed Second Appeal No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.88 of the Jammu Kashmir High Court in Second Appeal No.
By an order dated 5.2.1973, the custodian third appellant held that the sale was invalid since the property was evacuee property and belonged to one Shah Mahmood who had migrated to Pakistan during the disturbances of 1947 and companytinued to live there as an evacuee.
The Custodian numbericed that the application under Section 8 had been presented beyond the prescribed limitation period of two months after the order dated 5.2.1973 had been passed but even so he companysidered the application on merits and rejected it.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2 of 1978.
Altar Ahmed and S.K. Bhattacharya for the Appellants.
2395 of 1989.
Once again, an appeal was preferred to the Custodian General and he dismissed the appeal holding that there was numberneed for the custodian to have gone into the merits of the case when the direction given in the earlier appeal was only to see if any application under Section 8 had already been presented and was pending companysideration.
D. Thakur, E.C. Agrawala, Atul Sharma and Miss Purnima Bhatt for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. Leave granted.
16,000 under a sale deed dated 12.12.1970.
437 situate in Talab Khatikan, Jammu and sold the same to respondents 2 and 3 for a total companysidera tion of Rs.
Against the order of the custodian the respondents preferred an appeal to the Custodian General second appellant .
