JASWANT RAI Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for declaration has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) The plaintiffs claim that they were owners of the suit land measuring 32 Kanals and 10 Marlas on the ground that on 30th March, 1986 the predecessor of one Nurdin had mortgaged land in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the present plaintiffs and that Nurdin and his predecessor-in-interest, who had a right to redeem the said property under mortgage within 60 years, i.e. upto 30th March, 1946, did not get it redeemed and thus their right to redeem the said land under mortgage was extinguished by lapse of time and, therefore, the plaintiffs had become owners of the said land by operation of law instead of being mortgagees. However, it seems that in the entries in the revenue record Nurdin stood mentioned as a mortgagor and as a consequence of the said wrong entries in the revenue record, the Competent Officer, Jullundur, issued a notice to the plaintiffs under the provisions of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Separation Act') and the plaintiffs put their claims before the learned Competent Officer who held that the land in suit was not a composite property and that no right or interest vested in the Custodian because the right to redeem had become extinguished. In spite of this, the plaintiffs are still being shown as mortgagees in the revenue record regarding the suit land. The plaintiffs applied to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ludhiana under Section 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act for the ejectment of Ram Singh defendant who was in possession of the suit land and in that application an order of ejectment was passed against the defendant-respondent on 19th January, 1967 by the Assistant Collector, Ludhiana. While the proceedings for obtaining the possession of the land in suit were going on, the plaintiffs applied to the Revenue Authorities for correction of the revenue record by deleting the name of Nurdin as a mortgagor and during the pendency of this application the plaintiffs were informed that the suit land was transferred to the defendants on 28th January, 1971 by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. In these circumstances the plaintiffs filed the present suit challenging the order of transfer of land to the defendants as unlawful, ultra vires and without jurisdiction on the ground that the mortgage had become extinguished by lapse of time on 30th March, 1946 and that it had been conclusively held by the competent authorities that the land in suit is not a "composite property" and as such no right, title or interest vested in the Custodian which he could have transferred.

(3.) The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to try the suit as Section 46 of the Administration of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 expressly barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and that the remedy for the plaintiffs was to file a revision under Section 27 of this Act. The defendant also pleaded that he was bona fide purchaser for value and as such could not be evicted from the suit land.