- (1.) In this Second Appeal, the short question is whether the civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the appellants in respect of their share in the jagir income. Both the Courts below have held that section 13 (i) and (a) of the Atiyat Enquiries Act is a bar.
(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Advocates, it is necessary to state a few facts. One Fatima Begum was the holder of the suit jagir villages along with her uncle's sons and their representatives who were declared as shareholders On the death of Fatima Begum on 28th Meher, I355-F., Dawar Hussain and others, defendants 1 to 9, appeared in the Atiyat Court and claimed to be the successors of Fatima Begum, and according to the procedure then existing a notification was published in the Gazette. Then, all claimants who had a right to succeed to Fatima Begum appeared in the Atiyat Court, those being defendants 1 to 9 Plaintiffs 1 to 5 also appeared in the Atiyat Court in response to the said notification, but apparently did not pursue the matter before it The Nazim Ativat bv his order, dated 24th Dai, 1358-F., corresponding to 24th November 1948 held that the defendants-respondents were the successors of late Fatima Begum But since plaintiffs i to 5 had not put in their appearance before him, they were not given their share along with the 9th respondent to the one third share of Hyder Yar Jung. It is an indisputable fact that Hyder Yar Jung was held entitled to a one-third share in the jagir. It is further indisputable that his heirs were his daughter, gth defendant, and his sons-plaintiffs 1 to 5 (appellants). It cannot be gainsaid that before the Nazim Atiyat the appellants had applied for having their share specified ; but the Nazim Atiyat under a misapprehension that they had not put in appearance, sanctioned the claim of the 9th respondent alone to the entire share of Hyder Yar Jung. After stating that the plaintiffs were also the heirs, he stated " Laykin Vo Riju Nahi Hain which means that they had not put in appearance and for that reason their names and their shares need not be specified.
(3.) It appears, thereafter, that the appellants filed an application in 1953 for having the necessary corrections made. But, a memorandum was issued saying that no action could be taken on that application which was neither a review nor a revision. Immediately, thereafter the plaintiffs filed this suit for a declaration of their right to the extent of their share in the share of Hyder Yar Jung.;