JUDGMENT

S.N. Singh, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff respondent for a declaration of his title to the property in dispute and for permanent injunction.

Plaintiff's case was that he was the owner of the house built on the land detailed at the foot of the plaint. It was alleged that the defendant claimed the said land as part of plots Nos. 650 and 651 which had been acquired by the Government of India in the year 1915 for B. N. W. Railway. Plaintiff respondent did not admit that the site of the house was ever acquired by the Government or that the defendant was the owner of the same. It was alleged that in the year 1943 Governor General in Council representing the 0. T. Railway instituted Suit No. 531 of 1943 against Bachai Dubey and another for possession over certain plots including the disputed land and the said suit was decreed. It was further alleged that in execution of that decree the decree-holder wanted to dispossess the plaintiff's father from the land in suit which was resisted. An application under Order 21, Rule 97, C.P.C. had been filed but the same was dismissed. A revision against that order also failed. Thereafter the defendant appellant did not file any regular suit. It was further alleged that the Estate Officer of the Government had illegally treated the land as public premises and had directed the ejectment of the plaintiff from the land in suit. The order of the Estates Officer is said to be illegal and void hence the present suit for injunction.

This suit was contested by the defendant. The defendant admitted that Suit No. 531 of 1943 against Bachai Dubey had been instituted and decreed and it was also admitted that in execution of that decree there was resistance by the plaintiff's father and an application under Order 21, Rule 97, C.P.C. had been rejected and the revision against that order had failed and that no suit had been instituted challenging the order of dismissal. The defendant asserted that in proceedings under Section 4 of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act 1958 plaintiff was ejected from the land in suit and it was said that this order bound the plaintiff and that the civil court had no jurisdiction.

The trial court dismissed the suit on the finding that the civil court had no jurisdiction and that the suit was barred by Section 10 of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act 1958.

An appeal was preferred against this decision and the lower appellate court has reversed that judgment and decreed the plaintiff's suit on the finding that the Government has not proved that plots Nos. 650 and 651 in which the disputed property is said to lie is the property of the Union of India. The second finding of the learned Judge is that the house in dispute is not part of plots Nos. 650 and 651. Thirdly it has been found that the property in dispute is not such to which Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Eviction Act applies. Lastly it has been found that on the evidence on the record plaintiff's title to the house in dispute had been clearly established.

The defendant has come up in appeal to this Court.

The short point for decision in this appeal is as to whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. It this point is decided in favour of the plaintiff respondent then there will be no difficulty in dismissing the appeal. The finding given by the lower appellate court about the title of the plaintiff is clear and categorical.

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the civil court's jurisdiction in the present case is barred by Section 10 of Act XXXII of 1958 (Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act) which hereinafter will be referred as the Act.

It was submitted that the Tribunal constituted under the Act had jurisdiction to decide the question of title and reading Sections 5 and 10 of the Act it was clear that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred. Emphasis