DEFENCE OF PAKISTAN RULES, 1965 & DEFENCE OF PAKISTAN ORDINANCE, 1965

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.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.