The Custodian General then held that s. 48 as amended applied to the fresh proceedings which began on the numberice issued by the Assistant Custodian in January 1958.
After the remand further evidence was taken and it was held that the amount in question was payable by the appellant as it was a deposit and was still recoverable when the property vested in the Custodian.
172 A SUR 1960.
The matter has a long history behind it which it is necessary to set out in order to understand the point number in dispute in the present appeal.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 16, 1961 of the Deputy Custodian General, New Delhi in Appeal No.
After the appellant had succeeded in the High Court, another numberice of demand was served on him by the Assistant Custodian on January 22, 1958, and after hearing the objec tions of the appellant, the Assistant Custodian again directed the amount to be recovered.
85,000/ to the Custodian.
XXXI of 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The matter was taken in appeal before the Custodian, Saurashtra, but the appeal failed.
119 of 1963.
The total amount deposited was Rs.
He therefore remanded the matter for disposal after finding the facts in accordance with the directions given by him.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, K. S. Chawla and R. G. K. Achar, for the respondents.
He further held that the amount was recoverable under the amended s. 48 provided it was due to the evacuee on the date the property of the evacuee vested in the Custodian.
C. Setalvad, Atiqur Rehman and K. L. Hathi, for the appellant.
The money in question was deposited with the appellant by his sister as far back as January 1946.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Sometime later, the Assistant Custodian General called upon the appelant to pay this sum lying in deposit under s. 48 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, No.
In the meantime, s. 48 had been amended on October 22, 1956 and we shall refer to this amendment in due companyrse.
The appellant then took the matter in appeal to the Custodian General.
Then followed a writ petition by the appellant before the Saurashtra High Court in 1955.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Deputy Custodian General, and the question involved is whether the appellant is liable to pay Rs.
Then the appellant applied to this Court for special leave which was granted and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
85,000/ remained deposited with the appellant.
The appellants sister thereafter migrated to Pakistan sometimes between June to August 1949.
He was therefore of opinion that it would have to be determined when the sister of the appellant migrated and whether the amount was due to her on the date of her migration and had.
90,000/ , but the appellants sister took back Rs.
The appellant then went in revision to the Custodian General, and the revision also failed.
5,000/ , with the result that the balance of Rs.
The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge but on Letters Patent Appeal the appellant succeeded, the High Court holding that the amount was number recoverable under s. 48 of the Act as it stood at the relevant time.
Ho was further of opinion that the question whether the transaction amounted to a loan or a deposit had to be determined as there were different periods of limitation for these two types of transactions.
This decision was given on December 9, 1957.
The appellant companytested the matter on the ground that the money had been given to him as a loan and its recovery was barred in January 1949 long before his sister had migrated to Pakistan, and therefore the amount companyld number be recovered from him.
number become barred by the law of Iimitation on that date.
The Assistant Custodian however directed the recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue under s. 48 of the Act, as it then stood.
February 19, 1964.
The Custodian General allowed the appeal in August 1958 and remanded the proceedings for further enquiry as directed by him.
Thereupon the appellant again went in appeal to the Custodian General and that appeal was dismissed on February 6, 1961.
