http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: J.R. JANI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AHMED EBRAHIM OF RANGOON.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (7) 732        JT 1996 (3)   156  1996 SCALE  (2)585

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Though the  respondent initially  had appeared  through Shri I.N. Shroff, Advocate, on his demise, notice was issued on February  29, 1992 to the address available on record and till  date   nobody  appears  for  the  respondent.  Neither unserved envelope  nor acknowledgement  has  been  received. Under these circumstances, the notice must be deemed to have been served on the respondent.      These appeals  by special leave arise from the order of the Division  Bench of  the  High  Court  of  Gujarat  dated February 19,  1973 made  in L.P.A. No.85/70 holding that the L.P.A. is  not maintainable.  Therefore, the appellants have challenged the  original order  of the  learned single Judge dated November 24-25, 1969 made in Special Civil Application No.893 of 1965.      The substance  of the contention raised and answered in the High  Court was  that the respondent was at the material point of  time a  Burmeese  citizen  and  he  was  never  an evacuee. He  held the  shares of  the  Khatiawad  Industries Ltd.,  a  company,  in  former  Junagadh  State,  which  was declared as  an evacuee  company in 1959. He claimed that in the memory  of his  father  and  grand-father  Ibrahim  Vali Mohammed and  Company he  purchased six  lakhs shares in the said Khatiawad Industries Ltd. under an agreement dated June 12, 1944.  He and  his brothers  had agreed  to  give  those shares to  him. He  all  along  was  a  resident  of  Burma. Consequently, he  was not  an evacuee. Without notice to him under Section  7 read  with Rule  6 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the Rules, the declaration of the said Khatiawad Industries Ltd. as an evacuee property is illegal. The  learned single  Judge has held that though the respondent has  filed a revision under Section 27 of the Act since notice under Section 7 read with Rule 6 was not served on  the  respondent,  the  declaration  that  the  Khatiawad Industries Ltd.  is  an  evacuee  property  is  illegal  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

therefore, a non-est.      The question  is: whether  the view  taken by  the High Court is  correct in law? It is seen that the respondent had filed a  revision  before  the  revisional  authority  under Section 27  who had  given  him  an  opportunity  to  adduce evidence to  show that he had purchased shares of a value of Rs. 94,000/-  which he  claimed to  have  had  in  Khatiawad Industries Ltd.  Except producing  a stamp  paper of 8 annas value on  which there  was a  mention of the purchase of the shares in  the name of Ibrahim Vali Mohammed and Company, no other evidence  was adduced.  The  revisional  authority  on weighing the  evidence  found  that  the  respondent  was  a business Tycoon  having business  interest in  all over  the Asian countries; it would be unlikely that he would not have mentioned in any of the books of accounts about the purchase of value  of shares  worth a  sum of  Rs. 94,000/-  and  odd without being  submitted to  any authorities  for income tax purposes etc.  The agreement on stamp paper was not attested by any  Magistrate or  by a  Notary as  was in vogue in that State. It  was, therefore,  difficult to  believe  that  the respondent had  purchased 6  lakhs of  shares  of  Khatiawad Industries Ltd.  for a  sum of Rs.94,000/- and odd. Thereby, he had  not shown that he had got an interest in the evacuee property. It  is seen  that though there is no notice served on the  respondent as  required under  Section 7  of the Act read with  Rule 6  of the  Rules before  declaring Khatiawad Industries Ltd. to be an evacuee property, at a revision, an opportunity was  given to  the respondent to adduce evidence to prove that he had held the shares of Khatiawad Industries Ltd. of the value of Rs. six lakhs for a sum of Rs. 94,000/- and odd.  Even though  the respondent had appeared initially through counsel,  nothing has  been placed on record of this Court at  least to establish that he had purchased six lakhs shares of  a value  of Rs.94,000/-  and odd  from  Khatiawad Industries  Ltd.   which  was  declared  to  be  an  evacuee property. Under  those  circumstances,  we  think  that  the learned single  Judge was  not justified in interfering with the declaration  that the  Khathiawad Industries  Ltd. is an evacuee property.      The appeals are accordingly allowed and the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.