http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: VAMAN PRABHU MAHAMBRE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MARIA ALCINA DE MENEZES E GONSALVES AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/10/1994

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR  973            1995 SCC  Supl.  (2) 142  JT 1995 (1)   193        1994 SCALE  (4)669

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.     The appeal by special leave arises from the  judgment of  the  Judicial Commissioner. Goa. Daman &  Diu  in  First Civil  Appeal No. 13 of 1972 dated July 27. 1976. The  facts are as under:      Shri  Timoteo  Gonsalves.  the  husband  of  the  first respondent,  was the owner of the property. He.  on  October 23.1954. hypothecated his house with a plot of land situated in  Ribvander in Goa in favour of Fernando D. Aiala e  Costs and  his  wife  Maria  Ema for a sum  of  Rs.  22,500/-.  He migrated  to  Portugal. As a consequence. his  property  was declared  to  be the evacuee property on December  22.  1966 under  the  Goa.  Daman  &  Diu  Administration  of  Evacuee Property  Act. 1964.. Act No. 6/ 64 (for short  the  ’Act’). which came into force w.e.f. December 24. 1964. The property was  put to sale at a public auction and the  appellant  had purchased it on February 27. 1968 and a sale certificate was given   and  was  registered  on  October  14.  1969.    The respondent  Nos.  1-6 are the legal representatives  of  the mortgagee.  They laid the suit on October 31, 1969  for  the recovery  of the debt from the evacuee with a charge on  the hypotheca. The trial Court decreed the suit on March 1. 1972 which  was confirmed by the Judicial Commissioner under  the impugned judgment. 2.    The learned counsel for the appellant has  strenuously contended that by declaration of the evacuee property  under s.2(c)  of  the  Act.  by  conjoint  operation  of  s.3  and s.8(2)(i)  and  37  of the Act, the  Civil  Court  has  been divested  of  the  jurisdiction to  grant  the  decree.  The mortgagees-respondents  have  only  the  remedy  to  proceed before the Custodian of the evacuee property by operation of the  proviso  to s.8(2)(i) of the Act. since s.3  has  given over-riding effect over any other law including the Transfer of  Property  Act. The jurisdiction of the civil  court  has been  thus  divested by operation ors. 37. If any  right  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

liability  exists against the property. the mortgagees  only have a right to proceed against the Custodian of the evacuee property  but not by way of a suit and that. therefore.  the courts  below  have  committed  manifest  error  of  law  in granting the decree.  Though the contention. prims facie  is attractive  on deeper probe, we find it difficult to  accept the contention.  Section 16 of the Act envisages that :-               "Section  16    Exemption of evacuee  property               from process of courts, etc. Save as otherwise               expressly  provided  in this Act,  no  evacuee               property which has vested or is deemed to have               vested  in the Custodian under the  provisions               of  the  Act shall, so long as it  remains  so               vested,  be liable to be proceeded against  in               any  manner  whatsoever in  execution  of  any               decree or order of any court or authority, and               any attachment or injunction or order for  the               appointment  of a receiver in respect  of               any   such   property   subsisting   on    the               commencement of this Act, shall cease to  have               effect  on  such  commencement  and  shall  be               deemed to be void". Section 16 gives only over-riding effect over any other  law so  long  as the evacuee property remains so vested  in  the Custo- 195 dian  of  the evacuee property and no court.  or  any  other proceedings  in  any manner shall and whatsoever  either  in execution of any decree or order of any court or  authority, and  any  attachment  or injunction or order  shall  not  be effective  so  long as the property remains  vested  in  the Custodian. Section 16 of the Central Act, 1951, which is  in pari-material  has  been interpreted by this Court  in  Raja Bhanupratap  Singh v. Assistant Custodian Evacuee  Property. U.P., 1966 (1) SCR 304 at 308A, thus:-               "The second pan of the sub-section deals  with               avoidance  of  attachment,  or  injunction  or               order  for  the appointment of a  receiver  in               respect  of any evacuee property -  subsisting               on the date of the commencement of the Act  of               1951, and the first pan interdicts recourse to               the  evacuee  property so long as  it  remains               vested  in  the Custodian, by process  of  any               court or authority for obtaining  satisfaction               of any claim against the property." 3.      It is true as contended for the appellants that  the latter  part  of  the judgment clearly  indicates  that  the Custodian  is  also duty-bound to  discharge  the  liability attached  to the property and that the claimant is  entitled to   lay  claim  before  the  Custodian.   The  proviso   to s.8(2)(i),  brought  by way of an Amendment Act  14/70  with effect   from   November   18,  1970   given   the   proviso retrospective  effect  from the date of the  Act  came  into force,  gives  power  and  authority  to  the  Custodian  to discharge  the  liability attached to the  properly  to  the third  party.  But  by the date of the  Amendment  Act,  the mortgagees  have already filed the suit for recovery of  the suit amount and the suit was pending and the Custodian stood divested of the administration of the evacuee properly.  The right to proceed against the property has not been expressly divested  by operation of any of the provisions of the  Act. No  doubt, the mortgagees have a right to lay  claim  before the  Custodian  of  the  evacuee  property  by  proviso   to s.8(2)(i).   But  that  would be so  long  as  the  property remained   vested  in  the  Custodian  and  was  under   his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

possession  and  its  administration. It is  seen  that  the property  has  already been sold to the  appellant  and  the appellant  was given possession of the property  on  October 14,  1969, the date on which the property stood  registered. Thereby   the   Custodian   has   been   divested   of   the administration of evacuee property by conferment of title on the appellant through the sale conducted by him. Under  s.56 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgage debt is charge on   the  property  and,  therefore,  the   charge   remains subsisting  on the property so long as it has not been  duly discharged.  Admittedly, the suit is within limitation  and, therefore,   the  mortgagees-respondents  are  entitled   to proceed  against the property for the recovery of  the  debt due.  The decree is of joint and several  liability  against the  appellant and the Custodian of evacuee property.  Under these  circumstances, we do not find any illegality  in  the decree  for recovery of the amount as decreed by  the  civil court against the appellant and the suit hypothica. 4.     The  appeal  is accordingly  dismissed,  but  in  the circumstances without costs. 196