S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO. 134/1996 Smt. Jannat and another Versus. Bool Chand 09/09/2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK PARIHAR. Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta, for the appellants. Mr. MM Ranjan, for the respondent Suit for declaration and possession filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 17/09/1980. The above judgment and decree passed by the trial court has further been affirmed by the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 15/02/1996. This court, while admitting the present second appeal, framed following substantial questions of law:- “(i)Whether the Custodian Department has right to sell a property without acquiring the same as evacuee property as per provisions of Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and that of various provisions of Administration of Evacue Property Act, 1950 and without making notification and declaration vesting the evacue property in the Central Government? (ii)Whether the plaintiff does not get any title on the basis of unregistered sale-deed/sale certificate? (iii)Whether the defendants are in adverse possession of the property, hence the plaintiff cannot get possession back form them?” After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record. On the basis of evidence and documents on record, the courts below have come to a finding that the suit property was sold by the custodian in an auction to the plaintiff- respondent. The sale certificate, authority letter and the atonment letter issued by the custodian along with the letter of approval by the competent board has also been placed on record. The authenticity of the above documents issued by the competent authority has not been disputed by the defendants-appellants so far. In absence of any pleading, no issue was framed as to whether any notification for declaration of the evacuee property was required in the present matter nor the same was raised before the lower appellate court. The appeal was filed by the defendants-appellants before the lower appellate court only on the ground that sale deed issued by custodian was not registered and further the evidence with regard to the adverse possession of the defendants-appellants has not been properly considered. The courts below have come to a finding that under the relevant provisions of the Act, the sale deed so made by the custodian after auction was not required to be registered and further even the defendants- appellants have not been able to prove their adverse possession as claimed in the written statement. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendants- appellants that the suit could be filed only under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, could not be accepted on the basis of evidence on record since the defendants-appellants had claimed ownership on the basis of adverse possession and the plaintiffs-respondents claimed the declaration and possession on the basis of sale made by custodian of the evacuee property. On the basis of concurrent findings of fact, since after due consideration proper discretion has already been made by both the courts below, the substantial question framed do not survive now, moreso, when no error or illegality apparent on the face of record has been pointed out. The appeal is dismissed accordingly as having no merits. (Ashok Parihar), J.