JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J.:—This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment, dated August 23, 1978, whereby a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein. It arises out of these circumstances.

2. The plaintiff, Dr. Rajendra Prakash Sharma, is the appellant before us. He filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Bulandshahr, alleging that the house in dispute was owned by one Qazi Abdul Rashid, son of Qazi abdul Razak. Qazi Abdul Rashid had let out this house to Dr. Bhu Deo Sharma, father of the appellant, who was paying rent for the same to Qazi Abdul Rashid. He further alleged that the said Abdul Rashid had migrated to Pakistan and the house in dispute was declared evacuee property under the then existing law. Later on, it was put to auction on January 29, 1969 under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and was purchased by the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1,000 and the appellant was declared purchaser of this property with effect from April 1, 1969. Sale Certificate, dated March 19, 1969, was also issued in his favour.

3. He further pleaded that the defendants-respondents had also filed Suit No. 67 of 1970 for ejectment and arrears of rent against the appellants father, Bhu Deo Sharma. The suit was decreed on May 10, 1971, and that in pursuance of that decree they were trying to dispossess the plaintiff-appellant. He further stated that since he was not impleaded in the ejectment suit, he was not bound by that decree. On these facts, the plaintiff-appellant claimed a declaration of his title to the property in question, and further prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him in execution of the said decree obtained by the defendants in Suit No. 67 of 1970.

4. The defendants resisted the suit. They denied that the property in dispute was ever declared evacuee property or that it was ever acquired under the provisions of the Act of 1954. They asserted that the appropriate authorities never passed any order under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act declaring this property to be evacuee property. The contesting defendant, Gyan Chandra, further pleaded that Qazi Abdul Rashid had only 1/16th share in the house in question which was purchased by the defendants father (since deceased) and, therefore, the defendants are exclusive owners of the house. Gyan Chandra further alleged that Qazi Abdul Rashid had migrated to Pakistan in the year 1967, long after he had transferred his interest and share in the house in question; that Dr. Bhu Deo Sharma, father of the appellant had, in collusion with the Custodian Department, prepared fictitious proceedings relating to the sale of the house in question; that the Custodian Department had no jurisdiction to declare the property in suit as evacuee property, much less could they sell it under the Act of 1954. According to the defendant, the auction, if any held, was a nullity having been brought about by misrepresentation and fraud.

5. The trial court held that Qazi Abdul Rashid was not the owner of the house in question; that the entire proceedings taken by the Custodian Department were illegal and without jurisdiction and the plaintiff did not acquire any title by virtue of the sale held by the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (No. 44 of 1954) (for short, called the 1954 Act). In the result, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

6. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr affirmed the findings of the trial court. He held that the jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred by Section 45 of the Admininistration of Evacuee Property Act (No. 31 of 1950) (hereinafter called the 1950 Act) to go into the question whether or not the matter had been adjudicated upon by the authorities under that Act. It found that no inquiry, as contemplated under Section 7 of that Act 31