HARBANS LAL AND ANR. Vs. TULSI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN identical question of law on which their decision rests, is involved in those two petitions for revision and, therefore, they can be disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) TULSI Ram sold a piece of agricultural land to Qadir Bakhsh for Rs. 800 by a registered deed dated 23 -4 -1991). On 11 -7 -1999 he also sold another piece of land for Rs. 500 to Jamal Din. The Petitioners Harbans Lal and Sukhdarshan Lal, sons of Tulsi Ram, brought two separate suits for possession of the lands alleging that they formed a joint Hindu family with their father and that the sales effected by Tulsi Ram as manager were not for family necessity. During the pendency of the suit the vendees migrated to Pakistan and their properties vested in the Custodian for Evacuee Property. Both the suits were dismissed by the trial Sub -Judge on the ground that under Section 23 of Ordinance 13 of 2006 no civil Court could entertain a suit for any relief with regard to evacuee property. The Plaintiffs' appeals to the District Judge met with the same fate and on the same ground. They have now presented these two petitions out of which No. 5 of 2006 relates to the alienation in favour of Qadir Bakhsh and No. 9 of 2006 in favour of Jamal Din.

(3.) AS the section now reads the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred both as regards entertaining or adjudicating upon matters referred to therein. The contention of the learned Counsel that the Ordinance should not be given a retrospective effect and applied to cases which were already pending, is obviously without any substance. The language of the section itself leaves no doubt that it was meant to take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to decide the particular matters even though they were involved in cases which had already been instituted. It is within the competency of the Legislature to give retrospective effect to a statute and that has been expressly done in this case.