JUDGMENT :- The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether the Civil Courts have any jurisdiction to try the suit under Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 ?

2. The suit was brought by the brothers Hira Singh and Dr. Dheera Singh against their other three brothers, Darbara Singh, Hazara Singh and Hari Singh (hereafter called defendants 1, 2 and 3 respectively), as also Surjit Singh, defendant 4, son of Dr. Dheera Singh, for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the allotment of 3/5th share in respect of the property which had been acquired by the brothers in Harunabad, District Bahawalpur (now in Pakistan). The parties are displaced persons and left properties in Sind, Kasur and Harunabad. We are not concerned in this litigation with the properties left at Kasur and Sind. According to the allegations in the plaint, some vacant site was acquired in Harunabad by defendants 3 and 4. According to the plaint, it was a benami transaction in favour of the plaintiffs and the three other brothers, defendants 1 to 3, who all contributed towards the purchase of that land in equal shares. Dr. Dheera Singh, the second plaintiff, got some constructions made on this vacant site consisting of six rooms on the ground floor and four on the first and subsequently the defendants 1 and 3, namely, Darbara Singh and Hari Singh, contributed their shares towards this construction. Hazara Singh, the second defendant, did not contribute anything towards the construction and it was mutually agreed, according to the allegations in the plaint, that he abandoned his right to the property in favour of the second plaintiff. It is thus that plaintiff No. 1 claims 1/5th share and the second plaintiff the 2/5th share in respect of the allotment which has been made in respect of this property. Darbara Singh and Hari Singh, according to the plaintiffs, are entitled to 1/5th share each in this property.

3. After the partition, the parties came to reside in village Narli of Patti Tehsil in Amritsar district. With regard to the submission of claims, it was agreed between the parties, according to the allegations made in the plaint, that Hira Singh, the first plaintiff would submit a claim on behalf of himself and all the four brothers regarding the property left behind in Sind, while the second plaintiff was to do the same in respect of the property at Kasur. Darbara Singh, the first defendant, under this arrangement was to prefer the claim on behalf of himself and the other brothers in respect of the Harunabad property. It transpired subsequently that while the plaintiffs kept to this agreement, Darbara Singh preferred a claim for himself (13/20th share) and for Hari Singh (7/20th share) in respect of the property left behind in Harunabad. It is stated in the plaint in paragraph 7 that the first defendant was guilty of "fraud and misrepresentation" in putting the claim for himself and the third defendant alone to the exclusion of the plaintiffs. A declaration was accordingly sought to have the order of the Settlement Officer who had accepted the claim put forward by the first defendant, set aside as it was based on fraud and misrepresentation. In order to complete the allegations of the plaint, it may be mentioned that in paragraph 9 it is averred that the plaintiffs "requested defendants 1 and 3 several times to admit the plaintiffs title to the property and the claim in dispute to the extent of 3/5th but the defendants have denied the plaintiffs title thereby giving rise to the present cause of action.

4. The suit has been contested only by the first defendant who has denied the allegations made in the plaint. The substantial issue related to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain the suit and both the trial Judge and the lower appellate Court having reached a conclusion adverse to the plaintiffs they have come in appeal to this Court.

5. Now under Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document