(1.) THIS Is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge Budaun, dated 7th December, 1961. The facts in this case are not in dispute and, succinctly put, are as follows.
(2.) SMT . Umatul Khatun, wife of Moulvl Tawakkul Husain, was the owner in pos session of house No. N- 7/6, situate in MohaUa Sheikh PattL She sold this house to Hem Chand respondent No. 1 (since dead and represented by his heirs) and Tribhuwan Nath respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 1, 500 under a registered sale deed dated 25th May, 1951. The two res pondents paid the full price to the vendor. On llth August 1951 the Assistant Custo dian, Evacuee Property, Budaun declared the house as evacuee property. The res pondents, as required by the statute, ap plied for confirmation of the sale under Section 40 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (hereinafter re ferred to as the Act). Their application was, however, dismissed on 19th October, 1951. The appeal and thereafter revision preferred against the order of dismissal of the application under Section 40 also met the same fate. The respondents, there fore, applied under Rule 22 of the Ad ministration of Evacuee Property (Cen tral) Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as _ the Rules). That application was also rejected and the respondents were direct ed to go to the Civil Court. The respon dents accordingly, after giving notice under Section 80, C. P. C., filed .the suit giving rise to the present appeal for the recovery of Rs. 2075-42 together with in terest and costs from the appellant. The suit was contested by the ap pellant on the grounds that it was barred by time; that the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred by Section 46 of Act 31 of 1950; and that the transaction was not a bona fide one.
(3.) THE defendants went up in appeal and the learned Judge confirmed the find-Ings of the trial Court on the issues of jurisdiction and of limitation. The finding about the bona fide transaction on the part of the respondents does not appear to have been challenged before the lower appel late Court and therefore, the finding of the trial Court on that issue would also be deemed to have been confirmed by the lower appellate Court.The defendants have now come to this Court in Second Appeal.