The appellant, Rabia Bai, who is a citizen of India having her residence at Grange, Yercaud, in the Salem District, came to know in 1949 that premises No.
That is how the appellant obtained title to the property in suit.
This order was pronounced on February 4, 1953.
Since the appellant desired to acquire some immoveable property she arranged for the purchase of the said premises through her husband.
As we will point out the appellant applied for companyfirmation of this sale deed and her application has been rejected.
30,000/ was paid before the registering officer to Mr. M. H. Ganni who also held a power of attorney from the vendor.
2,40,000/ .
The appellant then moved the respondent, the Custodian General in his revisional jurisdiction.
In support of this companyclusion he relied on the companyduct of the vendor, the haste with which the transaction was attempted to be companypleted and the anxiety disclosed by him in his letter to Mohideen.
A substantial part of the companysideration to the extent of Rs.
After it was received back duly executed it was presented at the Collectors Office, Madras, and was duly stamped on June 27, 1949.
The said Gani came to Madras in April, 1949, and arranged for the sale, and as a result of negotiations between him and the appellants husband the latter entered into a written agreement with the former on April 29, 1949, to purchase the said property for Rs.
20, Godown Street, G.T., Madras, was for sale.
Income tax clearance certificate had, however, to be obtained before the said document companyld be registered, and soon after the said certificate was obtained the document was presented for registration and was duly registered on August 11, 1949.
The said premises belonged to one Mohamad Gani Jan Mohamad who had left for Pakistan in 1947 and had settled there.
In substance the respondent came to the companyclusion that the vendor wanted to evade the restrictions of the evacuee law which he knew would soon be extended to Madras, and that showed that he was number acting in good faith.
The Custodian found in favour of the appellant that the sale transaction in question was supported by valuable companysideration even so he proceeded to examine the question as to whether it companyld be said to have been entered into in good faith.
On this finding the appellate authority came to the companyclusion that the transaction had been entered into otherwise than in good faith, and so it companyld number be companyfirmed under s. 40 4 a .
The appellant challenged the companyrectness of this companyclusion by preferring an appeal before the Custodian.
The respondent companysidered the matter afresh, and agreed with the finding of the appellate authority that though the transaction was supported by valuable companysideration it companyld number be said to have been entered into in good faith.
The said Mohamad Gani Jan Mohamad had executed a power of attorney in favour of his nephew, Ahmed Abdul Gani.
Thereafter the sale deed was duly engrossed and sent to Karachi for execution by the vendor.
1,50,000/ was paid immediately in the form of cash and bank drafts.
Gajendragadkar, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order passed by the respondent, the Custodian General of Evacuee Property, New Delhi, in a revision petition companyfirming the orders of the subordinate authorities whereby the application made by the appellant for companyfirmation of the sale transaction in question has been rejected under s. 40 4 a of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, XXXI of 1950.
XXVII of 1949 took its place, and in turn this Ordinance was repealed by Act XXXI of 1950 on April 17, 1950.
The order refusing to companyfirm the transaction was passed on July 31, 1951.
