S POORAN SINGH CHHATWAL Vs. EAST PUNJAB STATESIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which calls for decision in this appeal is whether the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try the dispute. This suit has been instituted against three defendants; the State of Punjab, the Custodian Evacuee Property and one Shri Satya Pal who was Sub Inspector in the Rehabilitation Department. The suit is for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6191/-. Both the suit and the appeal have been filed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff is a displaced person from West Punjab and on 13th of August, 1047 he had purchased a maning concern of furniture and auction shop belonging to a muslim evacuee A. S. Khan Warsi in Ambala, for Rs. 1150/-. It is alleged in the plaint that he invested Rs. 2,000/- in the business which he was carrying on till 14th of October 1947 when his shop was illegally sealed by an Inspector of Custodian Department under the orders of the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, Ambala. It is then stated that the plaintiff submitted his claim under Sec. 5 of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act 1947 to the Deputy Custodian for confirmation of the sale of the business by A.S. Khan Warsi in plaintiff's favour. As the claim was accepted by the Deputy Custodian on 1st of April, 1948 and this order of his had become final and conclusive under Section 5(B) of the above mentioned Act, the plaintiff contends, that his title to the goods can no longer be challenged. The plaintiff then applied on 7th of April 1948 to the Cantonment Magistrate, who is also the Assistant Custodian, to remove the seal and allow him to carry his business in the shop which had been allotted to him but the seal was never removed. On 30th of May, 1948, the plaintiff learnt that defendant No. 3 had gone to the shop; he removed the seals and after breaking open the plaintiffs lock, the goods were removed. When requested by the plaintiff, defendant No. 3 refused to deliver possession of the same to him despite the sale having been confirmed by the Deputy Custodian by his order dated 1st of April, 1948. It was maintained that the goods had been removed illegally and in bad faith to the Malkhana of the Custodian Department and later on they were reported to have been sold by the officers of the Department The plaintiff claims that he has suffered (loss of ?) a sum of Rs. 4291/- on account of loss of goods. He also valued loss of business at Rs. 1500/- and the damage and the deterioration of goods at Rs. 400/-. Thus, under these three heads the plaintiff claims a sum of Rs. 6191/-, and has claimed that a decree for the recovery of this amount may be passed in his favour with costs. This suit has got a brief history which may be considered. This suit was first filed on 14th of December, 1948 and the pleas taken were traversed by the defendants giving rise to two preliminary issues :

(2.) The only question that has to be examined at this stage is whether in view of section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 31 of 1950, the Civil Courts' jurisdiction is barred in respect of the subject-matter of the suit. This section runs as under:

(3.) The argument which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is that the question whether the goods of the plaintiff are or are not evacuee property, had previously been decided in plaintiffs favour by the Deputy Custodian, when the sale of the business by A.S. Khan Warsi in plaintiff's favour was confirmed. The confirmation of this sale was, according to the learned counsel, tantamount to a decision by the Custodian that the subject-matter of this suit was not an evacuee property. His grievance is that the plaintiff had specifically taken this plea in para 5 and, therefore, he should have been permitted to lead evidence and prove his allegation and that in no case his suit should have been dismissed.