Enemy Property — it appears that no census list was prepared by the defendants as per the provisions of Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 and there is no proof that the original owners were possessing till they left the country. There is also no specific date given by the defendant when the original owner left this country— appeal is allowed.
Anwara Khatoon Vs. Enemy Property 4BLT (HCD)-87.
Rule-169(4) read with Evidence Act, 1872, Section —101
Defendant-Opposite Party, the Vested Property authority was bound to lay proof that Ram Chandra Basak, Radhika Chandra Basak and Krishna Chandra Basak or Madon Mohan Basak Gokul Chandra Basak and Kala Chand Basak left Bangladesh for India before Enemy Property Law came into force i.e. before the year 1965 and they became enemies and their property came, within the Mischief of Enemy Property under Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 169 of The Defense of Pakistan Rules. No paper, no documents had been produced from the side of Enemy Property Authority in support of the case programmed by it that the suit property is Enemy property. There had been total lack of evidence on the part Enemy Property Authority that predecessors of
plaintiff Petitioner, Ram Chandra Basak, Krishna Chandra Basak and Kala Chand Basak left Bangladesh for India at any point of time and they became enemies and suit property became Enemy property—Defendant-Opposite party was required to lay proof in respect of loss of domicile of origin of Plaintiffs predecessors Krishna Chandra Basak, Kalachand Basak and others and onus of proving that a citizen lost his domicile of origin and had chosen in substitution for the domicile of origin lies upon those who assert that domicile of origin has been lost.
Sree Narayan Chandra Basak & Ors Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors 15 BLT (HCD) 506
Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965
Sub Rule (4) of Rule 169
It appears that both the courts below having considered the oral and documentary evidence concurrently held that the transfer by registered deeds of 1975 vide Exhibits 5 and 6 as made by father and uncle living in a joint undivided Hindu family under the Dayabhag School of Law, is valid. Since the father and uncle being in Bangladesh in the year 1975, transferred the suit property, by the aforesaid registered deeds of gift, cannot be declared an enemy property since the law of enemy property itself died with the repeal of Ordinance No.1 of 1969 on 23.3.1974 no further vested property case can be started thereafter on the basis of the law which is already dead.
Srimati Aroti Rani Paul. Vs Sree Sudarshan Kumar Paul & Ors. 13 BLT (AD)36.