Judgement MUDHOLKAR, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the Deputy. Custodian General, Evacuee Property dated September 12, 1960 holding that one Zarina who migrated to Pakistan in the year 1949 had 7/48th interest in certain specified items of property left by her father Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin who died on December 21, 1954. The appellants before us are the widow and the two sons of this gentleman whom we shall hereafter refer to as Khan Bahadur. 2. After his death proceedings were initiated by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Hyderabad to declare the share of Zarina in the properties left by her father as evacuee property. Pursuant thereto a notice dated February 17, 1955 under S.7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 was issued by the Senior Assistant Custodian and served on the firm of M/s. Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Sons stating that Zarina was an evacuee and as all properties belonging to her were evacuee properties including her share in the properties mentioned in the said notice the Custodian would hold an enquiry on March 2, 1955 in the matter. A similar notice bearing the same date was served on Noorbanu, the widow of the Khan Bahadur. 3. On March 2, 1955 a preliminary objection was lodged by the appellants before the Senior Assistant Custodian in which they challenged the validity of notice and made a request that this question be tried as a preliminary issue. The Senior Assistant Custodian by his order dated March 3, 1955 overruled the preliminary objection and set down the matter for March 10, 1955 for recording evidence. 4. Against the order the appellants preferred a writ petition in the former High Court of Hyderabad on or about March 10, 1955. This was dismissed on the ground that the appellants had a remedy under the Administration of Evacuee property Act by way of an appeal against the order of the Custodian. Accordingly the appellants filed an appeal before the additional Custodian of Evacuee Property. The appeal was dismissed on April 4, 1955 whereupon the appellants preferred a second writ petition before the High Court issue of a writ of prohibition against the Assistant Custodian from continuing the proceedings and holding any further enquiry in the matter and for quashing those proceedings by issuing a writ of certiorari. The appeal was dismissed on April 4, 1955 whereupon the appellants preferred a second writ petition before the High Court issue of a writ of prohibition against the Assistant Custodian from continuing the proceedings and holding any further enquiry in the matter and for quashing those proceedings by issuing a writ of certiorari. This writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on September 15, 1955. 5. In the meantime the Senior Assistant Custodian issued a notice under S. 8 (4) of the Act calling upon the first appellant to surrender possession of the 7/48th share of Zarina in to properties mentioned in that notice on or before March 29, 1955. This notice was sent on March 14, 1955. On March 21, 1955 he issued a notification stating that all the properties belonging to Zarina, including her 7/48th share left by her father and certain other properties were evacuee properties and that they were vested in the Custodian. On that very day a notice under S. 7 of the Act was issued and served on the firm of M/s. Khan Bahadur Ahmad Alladin and Sons stating that as Zarina was an evacuee and properties belonging to her were evacuee properties, including her share in the properties specified in the said notice, the Custodian would hold an enquiry on April 2, 1955 in the said Matter. A notice to this effect was also issued to the first appellant. A third notice was issued on April 6, 1955 also under S. 7 stating the same things and stating also that an enquiry will be held by the Custodian on April 15, 1955. On April 6, 1955 a similar notice was served on the first appellant. Thereupon an enquiry was held by the Senior Assistant Custodian. 6. The contentions raised by the appellants at the enquiry were briefly these. The family belongs to the Khoja sect of Muslims and in the matter of succession the Khojas being governed by the Hindu law a Khoja is competent to make a will disposing of his property. According to them the Khan Bahadur executed a will on September 6, 1948 whereunder he created a wakf of certain property, made certain cash bequests including one of Rs.50,000 in favour of Zarina and bequeathed his remaining property, movable and immovable to the appellants. According to them the Khan Bahadur executed a will on September 6, 1948 whereunder he created a wakf of certain property, made certain cash bequests including one of Rs.50,000 in favour of Zarina and bequeathed his remaining property, movable and immovable to the appellants. Therefore, according to them, Zarina could not be regarded as one of the heirs of the Khan Bahadur and consequently no share in the property of the Khan Bahadur could vest in the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The Senior Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property set out in his order dated March 31, 1956 that the following properties were left by the Khan Bahadur: 1. Houses bearing Nos. 72, 92, 92/A,92/ B, 93 and 93/A situate at Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad-Deccan. 2. House bearing No. 3914 situate at Market Street, Secunderabad. 3. Houses bearing Nos. 1-8-540 to 570 situate at Begumpet, Hyderabad-Deccan. 4. Mulgi No. IVC-1-1097 (old) 21-1-1097 (New) situate at Pathargatti, Hyderabad-Dn. 5. S. Nos. 59, 60/1, 57/1 and 75 /1-2, measuring about 200 acres situate at village Fatehnagar Tq. Hyderabad-West, Dist. Hyderabad and Survey No. 67/I at Pahool Khan Guda, Taluq Hyderabad, Distt. Hyderabad. 6. Land measuring about 300 acres, known as Allauddin East situate at Sanatnagar and Erragadda, Hyderabad-Dn. 7. Houses bearing Nos. F-1-648 to 699 situate at Sanatnagar, Hyderabad-Dn. 8. 136 Labour quarters situate at Sanatnagar, Hyderabad-Dn. 9. 8 houses situate behind Laminated Factory, Hyderabad-Dn. 10. 3 barracks in the North of Erragadda in Alladin Estate, Hyderabad-Dn. 11. Firm known as Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladdin & Sons situate at Secunderabad-Dn. 12. Properties mentioned in the will executed by the deceased and any other property left by him. 7. Rejecting the contentions of the appellants he held that Zarina had 7/48th share in each of these items. His order was upheld in appeal by the Additional custodian of Evacuee Property. It is from that decision that the appellants went to the Deputy Custodian General by way of revision. He excluded some properties but held that in the remaining ones Zarina had 7/48th share which vested in the Custodian. The question about the validity of the notices issued by the Custodian was also raised before him but he held that the notices were good in law. 8. Before us three broad contentions were raised by Mr. Agarwala. One was that the notices were bad and, therefore, the notifications issued by the Custodian were invalid. The question about the validity of the notices issued by the Custodian was also raised before him but he held that the notices were good in law. 8. Before us three broad contentions were raised by Mr. Agarwala. One was that the notices were bad and, therefore, the notifications issued by the Custodian were invalid. The second was that the will was a valid one while the third was that certain properties, despite what was held by the Custodian General belonged exclusively to the first appellant. 9. In so far as notices are concerned the contention of Mr. Agarwala is that it was obligatory upon the Custodian to issue notices under S. 7(1) to all persons who were interested in the property which was claimed to be evacuee property and that unless a valid notice was issued to every one of them the Custodian will have no jurisdiction to proceed under Chapter II of the Act. This chapter deals with "Evacuee property vesting thereof in the Custodian". According to learned counsel the issue of a valid notice to every person interested is a condition precedent to the exercise of the powers conferred by this chapter and that omission to issue notice even to one of the various persons interested in the property would invalidate those proceedings. 10. In point of fact notices were issued by the Custodian. One was to the first appellant, Noorbanu and the other was to the firm of "M/s. Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Sons". This was on March 21, 1955. It is true that on an earlier occasion, that is, on February 17, 1965 notice was given only to the firm and not to the first appellant. However, if the notices issued on March 21, 1955 are valid and adequate in law, they would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Custodian to proceed further under Chapter II. It is not contended that the notice issued to the first appellant is invalid or insufficient. But what is contended is that notice to Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Sons could not be regarded as sufficient notice to the partners of the firm, the appellants 2 and 3. There is no substance in this contention because apart from them, there are no other partners in the firm and in pursuance of that notice both these appellants entered appearance and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Custodian. There is no substance in this contention because apart from them, there are no other partners in the firm and in pursuance of that notice both these appellants entered appearance and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Custodian. But then it is said no notice was issued to Zarina who was obviously a person interested because according to the Custodian she has 7/48th share in the property. It is true that no separate notice was issued to Zarina on this occasion but on April 29, 1950 a notice was issued to her under S. 5(3) of the Hyderabad Administration of Evacuee Property Regulation No. XII of 1359F. It may be mentioned that at the time Zarina migrated to Pakistan it was this regulation which was in force in the former State of Hyderabad and it was after action had been taken under this Regulation against Zarina that the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 was applied to the State of Hyderabad. Under S. 5 (1) of that Regulation, where the Custodian is of opinion that any property is evacuee property within the meaning of the Regulation he may, after causing notice thereof to issue to the persons interested and after holding an enquiry, pass an order declaring any such property to be evacuee property. Sub-section 3. of S. 5 provides that the Custodian shall from time to time notify all properties declared by him to be evacuee property under sub-section (1). Under sub-section (1) of S. 6 any property declared to be evacuee property under S. 5 shall vest in the Custodian. In the notification dated April 29, 1950, the following amongst others, were declared evacuee properties. They are items 7 and 8 in that notification and are described thus: "7. All properties belonging to Mrs. Zareen Calcuttawali w/o Ghulam Mohd. A Calcuttawalla, Hyderabad-Deccan. 8. All properties belonging to Mr. Amir Ali Calcuttawalla son of Mr. Ghulam Mohd. A. Calcuttawalla, Hyderabad-Dn." It is not contended before us that no notices were issued to Zarina before she was declared an evacuee and her properties were declared as evacuee properties. All properties belonging to Mrs. Zareen Calcuttawali w/o Ghulam Mohd. A Calcuttawalla, Hyderabad-Deccan. 8. All properties belonging to Mr. Amir Ali Calcuttawalla son of Mr. Ghulam Mohd. A. Calcuttawalla, Hyderabad-Dn." It is not contended before us that no notices were issued to Zarina before she was declared an evacuee and her properties were declared as evacuee properties. It is stated in the order of the Deputy Custodian General dated September 12, 1960 thus: "It may be mentioned at the outset that soon after her migration to Pakistan a notice under Section 5 of the Hyderabad Administration of Evacuee Property Regulation was issued to Smt. Zareena Calcutta wali wife of G. M. A. Calcuttawalla in respect of all of her properties (movable as well as immovable) including her shares and securities etc., in the Meezan Press Ltd. She was declared an evacuee and all her properties as evacuee property vide notification No. 34 dated 29th April 1950. Her shares in the Hyderabad Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. were also taken over as evacuee property. No one has challenged this declaration and it has been argued by Shri K. H. Bhabha for the Department that the same has become final". It seems to us that the notice contemplated by S. 7 of the Act is in the first place intended to provide an opportunity to the person whose property is in the opinion of the Custodian an evacuee property to satisfy the custodian that he is not an evacuee as defined in S. 2(d) of the Act. For, if he is not an evacuee his property cannot be declared evacuee property. In the second place it is to afford an opportunity to persons who have not migrated to Pakistan to satisfy the Custodian that the property which in the opinion of the Custodian, is evacuee property does not belong to an evacuee or that an evacuee has For Citation: AIR 1965 SC 1937 = (1965) 2 SCA 172 = (1965) 2 SCWR 1112.