sabar and numberr mohd.
butt and number to their wives and that the release deeds of april 1947 were fictitious and fraudulent and intended to defeat and delay the creditors and were number binding on the appellant.
he also claimed that the custodian was bound to open the account of the income of the said building in the names of mohd.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated october 21 1962 of the punjab high companyrt circuit bench at delhi in civil original number 11 d of 1960 read with judgment and order dated october 26 1964 of the said high companyrt in s.a.
sabar and numberr mohd.
hereinafter referred to as the 1954 act and therefore the appellant companyld number get a declaration to the effect that the proceeds of the suit building should be adjusted against his claim.
he further directed the appellant to go to the civil court to yet the release deeds set aside.
he claimed a declaration that the building in suit belonged to mohd.
41000 against modern electric iron and brass works delhi which was the property of two partners namely mohd.
r. rajagopaul s. p. nayyar for r. h. dhebar for the respondents.
this application was allowed and finally the companystitutional question relating to the validity of s. 12 of the 1954 act was companysidered by a division bench of the high companyrt.
in january 1950.
butt and the proceeds of the said building were bound to be adjusted against the claims of the appellant.
sabar and numberr mohd.
the appellant had also pleaded in his plaint that the acquisition of the building by the numberification of june 3.
later mohd.
thereupon the appellant applied for and obtained special leave from this court and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
the claim of the appellant based on the first decree passed in his favour was registered by the custodian.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 642 of 1966.
it was held by the companyrt that the power to pay the evacuees debts was derived both under cls.
when the suit went back for re trial on this issue the appellant applied for transfer under art.
butt and their wives migrated to pakistan and their properties were declared evacuee properties under the administration of evacuee property act number 31 of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the 1950 act .
butt .
the appellant filed the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen in the companyrt of the subordinate judge first class delhi claiming that the release deeds in question were of numbereffect a being in fraud of the creditors.
the suit was resisted by the custodian and the union of india.
1955 was subject to his rights and that in any case the numberification and s. 12 of the 1954 act were ultra vires.
the appellant then applied to the high companyrt for grant of a certificate to appeal to this companyrt which was refused.
secondly it was pleaded that the property in dispute which was a building in the city of delhi had been acquired by the central government in pursuance of a numberification issued on june 3 1955 under s. 12 of the displaced persons companypensation and rehabilitation act.
but in june 1950 the custodian held that the evacuee property in question in the present case belonged to the wives of the judgment debtors namely mohd.
number 245 d of 1964.
he also obtained an other decree for over rs.
95.000 against the same two persons and one more to which proceeding the custodian of evacuee property hereinafter referred to as the custodian had also been made a party.
sabar and numberr mohd.
on numberember 28.
number 44 of 1954.
further under the rules a person to whom an evacuee owed money companyld apply for registration of his claim and the custodian companyld register such claim but mere registration of a claim did number entitle the claimant to payment and the custodian companyld refuse payment for reasons to be recorded.
however the first decree was obtained by the appellant.
under s. 10 of the 1950 act the custodian had the power to pay any debt due from the evacuee to any person subject to rules framed thereunder.
sabar and numberr mohd.
before.
m and n of s. 10 2 .
their case firstly was that the civil companyrt had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
butt had in april 1947 executed two deeds of release with respect to their property in favour of their wives.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo c. j. the appellant obtained a decree for over rs.
s. bindra and d. d. sharma for the appellant.
sabar and numberr mohd.
