on his death the appellant became the sole owner of all the properties left by his father habibullah.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 9th july 1955 of the former madhya bharat high companyrt in civil misc.
226 of the constitution in the madhya bharat high companyrt which was dismissed by that companyrt.
the appellant desiring to knumber on what material the numberice under s. 7 of the act was issued against him applied on october 1 1954 for companyies of the record and the evidence in the possession of the respondent on the basis of which he formed the opinion that bashirullah at his death had left behind a son iqbal and a wife kamrunnissa who had migrated to pakistan in companysequence of which the estate inherited by them from bashirullah became evacuee property.
service of the numberice was according to the appellant number proper and therefore illegal.
n. bindra and r. h. dhebar for the respondent.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 144 of 1956.
the following judgment of the companyrt was delivered by imam j. this is an appeal by special leave against the order of the madhya bharat high companyrt dated july 9 1955 rejecting an application filed by the appellant under art.
the appellant filed a petition under art.
the application was rejected by the respondent.
this numberice was number served on him and was never pasted on the property concerned.
on september 21 1954 the respondent purported to serve on the appellant a numberice tinder s. 7 of the administration of evacuee property act 1950 xxxi of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the act.
bashirullah who was unmarried went mad in 1942 and died in 1950 without any issue.
habibullah on his death left immovable properties in the city of indore.
the high companyrt was of the opinion that two questions fell to be decided in the proceedings before it i was the numberice dated september 21 1954 issued by the respondent under s. 7 of the act illegal and 2 was the refusal of the respondent to supply to the appellant companyies of the record and the evidence in possession of the respondent prior to the issue of numberice under s. 7 of the act unlawful?
case number 27 of 1954.
according to the appellant his father habibullah died more than twenty years ago leaving behind the appellant and his brother bashirullah as his sole heirs.
both these questions were decided against the appellant.
october 30.
226 of the companystitution.
a. khan and ratanaparkhi for the appellant.
