NDLI: Ebrahim Aboobakar and Another Vs. Custodian General of Evacuee Property

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Bombay Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act 1949
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Bombay Evacuees (administration of Property) Act (27 of 1949)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Bombay Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1949- ordinance No. XXVII of 1949, ss. 7, 24-order refusing to declare person evacuee-Whether appeal able -informant, whether "person aggrieved"-Right to appeal-Courts with limited jurisdiction-- Power to decide facts upon which jurisdiction depends-Powers of an appellate court-Grant of writ of certiorari-Guiding principles. A writ of certiorari cannot be granted to quash the decision of an inferior court within its jurisdiction on the ground that the decision is wrong. It must be shown before such writ is issued that the authority which passed the order acted without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or in violation of the principle~ of natural justice. Want of jurisdiction may arise from the nature of the subject-matter, so that the inferior court might not have authority to enter on the inquiry or upon some part of it. It may also arise from the absence of some essential preliminary or upon the existence of some particular facts collateral 1 to. the actual matter which the court has to try and which are conditions precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by it. But once it is held that the court has jurisdiction but while exercising it, it made a mistake, the wronged party can only take the course prescribed by law for setting matters right inasmuch as a court has jurisdiction to decide rightly as well as wrongly. When an inferior court or tribunal which has the power of deciding facts is established by the legislature, it may in effect say that, if a certain state of facts exists and is shown to such tribunal or body before it proceeds to do certain things, it shall have jurisdiction to do such things but not otherwise. There, it is not for them conclusively to decide whether that state of facts exists, and, if they exercise the jurisdiction without its existence, what they do may be questioned, and it will be held that they have acted without jurisdiction. But the legislature may entrust the court or tribunal itself with a jurisdiction which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminary state of facts exists and on finding that it does exist, to proceed further or do something more. In the second case the rule that a tribunal cannot give itself jurisdiction by wrongly deciding certain facts to exist does not apply. Ordinarily, a c~urt of appeal has not only jurisdiction to determine the soundness of the decision of the inferior court as a court of error, but by the very nature of things it has also jurisdiction to determine any points raised before it in the nature of preliminary issues by the parties. Such jurisdiction is inherent in its very constitution as a court of appeal. Whether an appeal is competent, whether a party has locus standi to prefer it, whether the appeal in substance is from one or another order and whether it has been preferred in proper form and within the time prescribed, are all matters for the decision of the appellate court so constituted. An order by an Additional Custodian in a proceeding under Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 refusing to declare a person an evacuee and his property evacuee property is an order under s. 7 of the Ordinance and is appealable under s. 24. A person claiming to be interested in an enquiry as to whether a person is an evacuee and his property evacuee property, who has filed a written statement and adduced evidence, is a "person aggrieved" by an order that the latter is not an evacuee and has a locus standi to prefer an appeal from the order.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan
Neutral Citation	1952 INSC 38
Petitioner	Ebrahim Aboobakar And Another
Respondent	Custodian General Of Evacuee Property
SCR	[1952] 1 S.C.R. 696
Judgement Date	1952-05-26
Case Number	4

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Ebrahim Aboobakar and Another Vs. Custodian General of Evacuee Property

Please Log-in to view this content

Jaswant Singh & Anr Vs. The Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi

Fatima Bi & Anr. Vs. Deputy Custodian General Evacuee Property, New Delhi

Indira Sohanlal Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi & Others

Ram Gopal Reddy Vs. Additional Custodian Evacuee Property, Hyderabad

Major Gopal Singh and Others Vs. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab.

Dafedar Niranjan Singh and Another Vs. Custodian, Evacuee Property (pb.) and Another.

Memon Abdul Karim Haji Tayab Vs. Deputy Custodian General, New Delhi and Other

Joginder Singh and Others Vs. The Deputy Custodian General of Evacuee Property

Rabia Bai Vs. The Custodian-general of Evacuee Property.

Ebrahim Aboobakar and Another Vs. Custodian General of Evacuee Property

Ebrahim Aboobakar and Another Vs. Custodian General of Evacuee Property

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Jaswant Singh & Anr Vs. The Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi

Fatima Bi & Anr. Vs. Deputy Custodian General Evacuee Property, New Delhi

Indira Sohanlal Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi & Others

Ram Gopal Reddy Vs. Additional Custodian Evacuee Property, Hyderabad

Major Gopal Singh and Others Vs. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab.

Dafedar Niranjan Singh and Another Vs. Custodian, Evacuee Property (pb.) and Another.

Memon Abdul Karim Haji Tayab Vs. Deputy Custodian General, New Delhi and Other

Joginder Singh and Others Vs. The Deputy Custodian General of Evacuee Property

Rabia Bai Vs. The Custodian-general of Evacuee Property.

Ebrahim Aboobakar and Another Vs. Custodian General of Evacuee Property