( 1 ) TWO short but substantial questions of law are agitated in this appeal and I must commend Shri Swami Saran's honest endeavour to steer clear of the bar of S. 100, C. P. C. realising that concurrent findings of two Courts against the appellant/defendant offer him only a limited option.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed that the respondent/plaintiff based his suit on title for recovery of possession of the property in question which, according to Shri Swami Saran, had been duly declared "evacuee property" under S. 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, for short, the Act. Counsel's contention is that the Courts below erred in law in not holding the suit to be barred by the Act and he drew my attention to Ss. 28 and 46 of the Act to buttress his submission. Counsel has also drawn my attention to Ex. D3, which is a copy of the order passed in the year 1957 under S. 7 of the Act, by the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property, Gwalior. Counsel's second contention is that because the Custodian has not been impleaded in the suit though he was a necessary party, the suit was liable to be dismissed on that ground itself. Unfortunately, in my opinion, both contentions m