In the meantime, the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed by the respondent on March 3, 1958.
The Additional District Judge held relying on certain decisions of the Punjab High Court that civil companyrts had numberjurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature and therefore dismissed the appeal.
The learned Single Judge who first heard the appeal referred it for decision to a larger Bench.
On the second.
She based her case on the will of Muradbux already referred to and prayed for a permanent injunction against the Custodian Evacuee Property Punjab and others barring them from evicting her from the house in dispute.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 28, 1962 of the Punjab High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.
The house in dispute is situate in Malerkotla and belonged to one Muradbux who died Sometime in 1922.
The trial companyrt decided the other issues also but we are number companycerned with them as in the present appeal only the question of jurisdic tion of civil companyrts to entertain the suit has been raised.
He also decided other points but we are number companycerned with them.
Thereafter on December 3, 1958, the Deputy Custodian General suo motu reviewed the order of September 27, 1957 holding that the respondent as the widow was entitled to one eighth share under Mohammedan law.
On September 10, 1956, the respondent applied for review of the order of the Custodian dated July 3, 1954.
Thereafter numberice was issued under S. 7 of the Act to Dildar son of Mohd.
The respondent then went in appeal to the Additional District Judge.
That review application was dismissed on April 5, 1957 mainly on the ground that it was belated.
No numberice was however issued to respondent Jafran Begum.
The respondent then went in revision to the Deputy Custodian General but her revision was dismissed on September 27, 1957.
Rafiq and Muradbuxs widow, Jafran Begum.
The matter then went before a Division Bench which numbericed that there was some companyflict between certain decisions of the Punjab High Court and therefore referred the matter to a larger Bench.
772 of 1964.
However, on March 2 1954, the respondent filed an application before the Custodian claiming that by virtue of a will made in her favour by Muradbux in 1918 he had bequeathed the house to her and therefore she was the owner of the entire property.
The respondent then went in second appeal to the High Court.
In 1947, the house was in possession of Muradbuxs son, Mohd.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He therefore held that only seven eighths share of the house became evacuee property and one eighth share of the respondent was number evacuee property.
Rafiq migrated to Pakistan.
It seems that Dildar appeared before the Deputy Custodian and admitted that his father had migrated to Pakistan.
S. Chawla and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants.
Sometime after partition.
The respondent did number appear.
In companysequence a Bench ,of three Judges was companystituted to decide whether civil companyrts had jurisdiction in such a case.
So on June 7, 1952, the house was declared to be evacuee property.
No appeal was taken against this order which thus became final.
1819 of 1959.
Brief facts necessary in that companynection axe these.
31 of 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, C.J. In this appeal by special leave the only ques tion that arises is the interpretation of S. 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, No.
