BADRI PRASAD Vs. COLLECTOR NALANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, IIIrd, Biharsharif, in Tittle Appeal No. 7 of 1975/11 of 1982 affirming the judgment of the trial Court, passed in title Suit No. 159 of 1968 by the Munsif at Biharsharif on 20 -12 -1974. The plaintiffs of that suit are the appellants herb.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff -appellants was that the suit land was owned and possessed by one Sk. Makhdum. Sk. Makhdum gifted 3.29 acres of land to his sons and daughter by registered deed of gift dated 6 -7 -1923 Makhdum died in the year 1926. The rest of his lands measuring 3.29 acres were inherited by sons and daughters of Sk. Makhdum, plaintiff -appellants purchased the entire suit land from the heirs and successors of Makhdum. However, Evacuee Department of the Government of India declared the suit property as Evacuee Property. The plaintiff -appellants learnt of this declaration in the year 1965, when the suit property was being auction -sold on 5 -2 -1965 by bid officer. They raised objection, but their objection was rejected. They also filed revision and appeals against the aforesaid rejection, but the same had also been dismissed. Plaintiff -appellants claimed that no notice was served upon them under Sec. 7 of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950. So, all steps taken in the evacuee proceedings were illegal. When defendant No. 5, D.G. Yadav. attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking declaration of the title and confirmation of the possession. The plaintiffs had filed the suit after serving notice under Sec. 80 C.P.C. upon the defendants.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 1 to 4 who are respondents before this Court contested the suit through a written statement and they took up a plea that the suit was not maintainable, and it was barred under Sec. 46 of the Act. All orders passed by the officers under the Evacuee Property Act were legal and valid. The alleged deed of gift by Makhdum and the alleged registered sale -deeds executed by his successors were never acted upon. The suit land was rightly taken in possession by the custodian of the evacuee property and it was rightly sold to defendant No. 5.