SHYAM NANDAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. SITA RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by defendant No. 4 arises out of a judgment of affirmance. The plaintiffs filed suit claiming inter alia, declaration of their title with respect to suit property and its recovery. It is not necessary to set out the pleadings of the parties for decision of the questions which have been raised in this appeal. Suffice it to say that the plaintiffs' claim is based on purchase from the auction purchaser, defendant No. 9 in the suit, of a property which was declared to be evacuee property under the Administration of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act'). The defendant inter alia on the defence that the suit property is not evacuee property. A plea was also taken as to bar the suit under Section 46 of the Act. The trial Court negatived the defence and decreed the suit as against the appellants which has been upheld by the lower appellate court.

(2.) MR. Kalika Nandan reiterated the plea as to bar of the suit under Section 46 of the Act and submitted that the suit being maintainable as seeking adjudication upon a question as to the nature of the property the court should have dismissed the suit as against the appellants as well. Section 46 of the Act reads as follows 46. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts barred in certain matters.--Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Civil or Revenue Court shall have jurisdiction--

(3.) IN my concluded opinion, therefore, there is no error of law in the impugned judgment and decree. This appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed with cost.