ORDER

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2019 passed by leaned District Judge, Poonch in appeal titled Devinder Kour and others vs. Sadhu Singh, whereby the judgment and decree decreeing the suit passed by learned Sub-Judge, Poonch has been set aside and the suit dismissed after holding that the suit of the plaintiff (appellant herein) was not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction in view of the provisions contained in Section 31 of the Evacuee (Administration of property Act), Svt 2006 (for brevity “the Act”)

2. Plaintiff/appellant filed a suit before the Sub Judge, Poonch seeking declaration to the effect that plaintiff is owner in joint possession over the land measuring 16 Kanals falling in Khasra N. 697 situated at Dhara Dulla, Poonch along with defendant with a consequential relief of permanent/prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or transferring the above said land to any person in any manner.

3. Before the trial court objection was raised with regard to the jurisdiction of the civil court and it was pleaded that in view of the provisions of Section 31 of the Act the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. The trial court rejected this plea holding the suit maintainable and accordingly decreed.

4. The appeal against the said order was allowed by the learned District Judge, Poonch after holding that Section 31 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court and the same was triable by the authority under the Act. This order holding that the civil courts jurisdiction is barred is under challenge in this appeal and as per the appellant substantial question of law are involved in this case. In the appeal it is pleaded that the relief claimed was beyond jurisdiction of the authority under the Act and the bar created under Section 31 was not applicable to the case in question and the appellate court wrongly relied upon the provisions of law and decided the question of jurisdiction and the findings of the appellate court that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred is wrong and illegal.

5. Section 31 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006 reads as under:-

31. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts barred in certain matters.— (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction-

(i) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property is or is not evacuee property or whether an evacuee has or has not any right or interest in any evacuee property; or

[(ii) to question the legality of any action taken by the Custodian General or the Custodian under this Act;]

(iii) in respect of any matter which the [Custodian General or the Custodian is] empowered by or under this Act to-determine.

6. As per the appellant, on the basis of the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal, the appeal is required to be admitted.

7. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. I. Sherkhan, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondents and have also gone through the record of the file.

8. Section 100 of the Code of Civil procedure provides as under:-

“100. Second appeal.—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.

(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.

(3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.

(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.

(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing o