The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in matters related to evacuee property under Sections 28 and 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and Section 27 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff petitioners against the order of a Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 21st March. 1968 by which he has answered the first issue against the plaintiffs and held that the Civil Court had no iurisdiction to try the suit and has dismissed their suit with costs.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the revision are that the property in dispute was declared to be evacuee property and had been sold on 19th December, 1964 by the Managing Officer in exercise of powers conferred by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 44 of 1954 after the property had been acquired bv the Central Government under Section 12 of the said Act. The plaintiffs have brought the suit on the following material allegations, namely.

(1) plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are son and daughter of Mohd. Ahmad and plaintiff No. 3 is the husband of plaintiff No. 2 and that they have been living in the property in dispute: (2) the said Property it is alleged bv the plaintiffs, originally belonged to Khudah-Baksh, grandfather of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and after his death devolved on Mohd. Ahmad, father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and that Mohd. Ahmad has not been heard of since 1947 and the plaintiffs have been residing in the property in dispute. The plaintiffs claim that plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of Mohd. Ahmad and were entitled to inherit the property and are thus the persons interested in the property, but they had not received a notice from the Custodian s Department to the effect that the property was being declared evacuee property and as such no opportunity had been given to them to contest the vesting of the same by the Custodian. It is urged that the acquisition of the property under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons Act was illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also challenged the sale in favour of the second defendant mainly on the ground of irregularities in publication of the sale which are mentioned in paragraphs 10. 11, 12 and 13 of the plaint. They have alleged that the property was allottable and ought to have been transferred to the plaintiffs. The relief claimed by the plaintiffs is a declaration to the effect that the aforesaid property is still the property of the plaintiffs and its sale in favour of the second defendant is illegal, void and without any legal force whatsoever and that the vesting of the property in the Custodian and subsequently in the Central Government is bad in law. An injunction restraining the defendants from recovering any rent from the plaintiffs and disturbing their peaceful occupation of the property has also been claimed. The suit has been contested on behalf of the Union of India the first defendant as well as the purchaser from the Union of India, the second defendant.

( 3 ) THE Union of India has denied the contentions of the plaintiffs and have urged that the plaintiffs had nothing to do with the property in dispute and they have challenged the iurisdiction of the Court to try the suit.

( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed, namely:

"1. Whether this Court has not jurisdiction to try the suit ? 2. Whether the sale of the property in suit is illegal as alleged ? 3. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to sue ? 4. Relief. "on the application of the defendants, only the first issue was tried and as mentioned above, the same has been answered against the plaintiff in view of an authority of the Supreme Court in Custodian Evacuee property v. Jafran Begum, AIR 1968 SC 169.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners in this Court has, in support of the revision, contended that Mohd. Ahmad had died earlier and the plaintiffs were the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased and so they were entitled to a notice under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 31 of 1950 and since such a notice has not been served on them personally. the dec