MAUJI RAM RAM RIKH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff purchased land measuring four Bighas and two Biswas for Rs. 700 from oen Munshi, son of Kura Pathan, The sale in their favour was completed on the 17 the of June, 1947, as alleged by them. The mutation was sanctioned in their favour on the 1st of December , 1948. This mutation was reviewed on the 21st of March, 1953, and the names of the plaintiffs were removed. The plaintiffs then filed an application under section 7 of th Administration of Evacuee Property act, 1950, which came up for hearing before the Assistant Custodian (Judicial), rohtak on the 16th of June, 1956. The Assistant Custodian was of the opinion that he could not hear the application in view of a letter of the Additional Custodian, jullundur, No. J/3/6967 dated 21st of May, 1956, as the property hadvested in the president of Indian Union. He, therefore, dismissed the application with the remark that the plaintiff could seek their remedy in a civil Court. The plaintiffs then filed the suit , out of which the appeal has arisen, on the 18th of January, 1957, in which the prayer made was that the plaintiffs should be declared as full owners of the land in suit and that they were in rightufl possession thereof and the Union of India should be restrained by perputual injunction from interfering with their possession. In the plaint it was stated that Munshi never migrated to Pakistan as a result of Communal disturbances in 1947 and remained in India, his property never became evacuee property and, therefore, never vested in the Custodian according to any law. It has been further stated that the cancellation of the mutation by order dated 21st of March, 1953 was without jurisdication and that the sale had been completed before te 14th of August, 1947, and therefore, the land insuit could not be treated as evacuee property. The possession of the land was alleged to have beendelivered to he plaintiffs in June 1947. The plaintiffs then pleaded that the land in suit had been wrongly declared as Muslim evacuee property and vested in the Union of India and for this reason union of India was being made a party to the suit.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by the Union of India all the averments in the plaint were denied and it was stated that the land insuit had been rightly declared asevacuee property and the civil Court had no jurisdiction.

(3.) ORIGINALLY three issues were framed as under:-1. Whether the plaintiff are the owners of the property in suit? 2. Whether a notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. , has been validly given ? 3. Relief. Later on two more issues were adeed as under and were numbered 3 and 4:--3. Whether civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 4. Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction? The issue with regard to relief was numbered as 5. Issues nos. 1 and 2 and 4 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and issue No. 3 was decided against the defendant. As a result of the findings, the learned dtrial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs on the 10th of december, 1957> The Union of India filed an appeal against thedecree in the Court of the senior subordinate Jdge, Rohtak, whichwas accepted on the 2nd of December, 1958. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge Senior Subordinate Judge held that the civil court had no jurisdication to entertain the suit and that the plaintiffs purchased one-half of the land in suit from Munshi. Aggrieved from that decree, the plaintiffs have filed the appeal inthis Court.