SATYA DEVI Vs. CUSTODIAN GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal by one Satya Devi against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Ludhiana whereby her suit for declaration was dismissed on the premises that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the same.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff claimed herself to be the owner in possession of the land in question whereupon she had constructed a house. It is alleged that the suit land was purchased by her uncle late Pt. Salig Ram from one Gulam Mohammad, a Muslim, vide registered deed dated 20.7.1936 Exhibit P.1. On the demise of Salig Ram, the plaintiff claims to have succeeded to the suit land vide a Will, Exhibit P.5, and has remained in possession thereof after that event. It was averred that the Custodian General had illegally and without notice to the plaintiff treated the land in question as an evacuee property which was illegal, in-operative, void and unjustified. The wrong done to her remained unrectified despite service of notice on the defendants which included the Government of India Custodian. The suit was contested by the defendants inter alia on various grounds but mainly that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the case of this nature. It was pleaded by the defendants that they had not declared the property in question to be evacuee property but as the property in the revenue papers stood in the name of a Muslim i.e. Gulam Mohammad, it had automatically vested in the Custodian under Section 4 of the East Punjab (Evacuee Property) Act, 1947 and treated to be evacuee property as envisaged by Section 8(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (Central Act No. 31 of 1950). It was objected as well that the plaintiff should have approached the Deputy Custodian General of India under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 for obtaining the desired relief. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff but the lower appellate Court on appeal sustained the objection of the defendants and this is how the matter has come up to this Court at the instance of the plaintiff. At the outset, it was pointed out that the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court Custodian Evacuee Property Punjab and others v. Jafran Begum, 1968 70 PunLR 1, stands glaringly to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The twin question as to whether a particular property is evacuee property and whether the person to whom it belonged was an evacuee are unquestionably within the domain of the Custodian under the provisions of Central Act No. 31 of 1950. But here in this case it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the registered deed dated 20.7.1936 being a document more than 30 years old on the day when it was filed in the Court required no measure of proof and stood proved ipso facto. On such legal presumption and proof, it was contended that the whole colour of the litigation gets changed as the question which was determinable by the civil Courts was as to whether the plaintiff was the owner of the property in dispute and not as to whether the property in dispute belonged to Gulam Mohammad, the vendor, and ultimately the Custodian by the suggested automatic vesting. The argument is undoubtedly ingenuine and attractive. A closer examination in this respect would, however, be unnecessary because of the fair stance adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents who has gone on to concede that the Custodian General defendant will suo motu in exercise of his powers under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf go into the question and pass appropriate orders as to grant relief to the plaintiff, if found so entitled, so as to remove any injustice done in the matter. In view of the just and candid stand taken by the learned Additional Advocate General reflective of the virtuosity of the State as a litigant, no relief remains to be granted to the plaintiff. As a consequence, the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Ludhiana, has to remain undisturbed. The appeal thus stands dismissed with order as to costs throughout. Appeal dismissed.