- (1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs and the facts rising rise to it are these. The house in dispute, which is situated in village Ghaibipur, Tehsil and District Hissar, was shown in the relevant register maintained by the Rehabilitation Department as evacuee property. A copy of the relevant entry appears as Exhibit P.1 and according to the same the house in dispute was allotted to Banu Ram, the father of the plaintiffs. Later on, the Central Government acquired the house in dispute under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Compensation Act) and, therefore, it became part of the compensation pool under Section 14 thereof. On the 21st of October, 1955, Central Government transferred the house in dispute to the plaintiffs through sanad Exhibit P. 3 and on the 3rd of April, 1961, the plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendant claiming possession of the house in dispute on the grounds that they were owner thereof by reason of transfer made in their favour by the Central Government and that the defendants were trespassers.
(2.) Narain Dass (defendant No. 1) alone contested the suit. He pleaded that the house in dispute had never been evacuee property, that he had built it himself on a piece of non-evacuee land and that it had not been transferred to the plaintiffs. The two Courts below held that the allotment of the house in dispute in favour of the father of the plaintiffs and the ultimate transfer thereof in their own favour was fully proved but on issue No. 3 which ran thus : "Whether the house in dispute has been validly transferred in the name of the plaintiff as an evacuee property and as such he is entitled to the possession of the same ?" they held on a consideration of the evidence produced at the trial that the house in dispute was not evacuee property and that its transfer, therefore, by the Central Government to the plaintiffs did not create any title in their favour. In these premises the two Courts held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to evict defendant No. 1 from the house in dispute and their suit.
(3.) This appeal must succeed inasmuch as Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, is a complete bar to the trial of issue No. 3 by the civil Courts. That Section states - "46. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, civil or revenue Court shall have jurisdiction - (a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not evacuee property; or (b) * * * * (c) to question the legality of any action taken by the Custodian-General or the Custodian under this Act; or (d) in respect of any matter which the Custodian General or the Custodian is empowered by or under this Act to determine." Clause (a) lays down in unambiguous terms that no civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property is or is not evacuee property. The Custodian, according to entry Exhibit P. 1, having treated the property as evacuee property, it could not be divested of that character by the civil Courts. Besides, Section 36 of the Compensation Act is a bar to the civil Courts challenging the authority of the Central Government in respect of any matter which it is empowered by the Compensation Act to determine. The Central Government acquired the house in dispute under Section 12 of the Compensation Act and transferred it to the plaintiff thereafter under the other provisions of that Act. The transfer of title to the plaintiffs cannot be attacked in proceedings before the civil Court and must be taken at its face value. From whatever angle, therefore, the matter is looked upon, it must be held that as soon as they were given Sanad Exhibit P.3, the plaintiffs became owners of the house in dispute and thus acquired a title which could not be challenged by reason of any flaw in the title of the Custodian being defective on the ground that it was not evacuee property.;