' The suit land belonged to Jammu & Kashmir State which came to vest in the Central Government in pursuance of section 2 of the Jammu & Kashmir (Administration of Property) Ordinance, 1961, and was sold by them to the respondent. The sale was evidenced by Sale Certificate dated 5th April 1963, issued under section 5 of the Ordinance.
' Thus R. S. A. Has arisen out of the suit filed for declaration by the appellants that they held the land as occupancy tenants without payment of any rent beyond the land revenue rates and cesses, and that under the Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act, they became owners thereof, the sale in favour of respondent was thus, void and illegal.
2. The respondent resisted the suit, raised a number of legal objections, questioned the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court and asserted that previously too the appellants filed a suit which was dismissed, and therefore, the subsequent suit was barred.
3. The learned trial Court framed two preliminary issues as to whether the, Court had jurisdiction and whether the suit could proceed in view of the dismissal of the previous suit. Both the issues were answered by the learned trial Court against the appellants and their suit dismissed. This dismissal was upheld even by the learned first appellate Court.
' The judgment and decree dated 28th June, 1978, of the land 1st Appellate Court have been assailed through this appeal.
4. The first submission of the appellants' learned counsel was that the appellants became owners of the land in dispute, under section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 as amended by the Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1952, before the Promulgation of Ordinance III of 1961, and the Sale Certificate was issued thus without any lawful authority, and that therefore, the civil Court had jurisdiction in the matter.
It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. It is not disputed that the land in dispute belonged to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Under section 2 of Ordinance III of 1961 as amended by Ordinance XLIII of 1961, all immovable properties situate in Pakistan belonging to the Jammu Kashmir State, on 14th August 1947, came to vest free of all encumbrances, in the Central Government. And were to be deemed to have vested on that date. Section 2 is thus, retrospective in operation. Legally, therefore, the property in dispute had already been vested in the Central Government free of all encumbrances before the Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1952, was promulgated. Section 5-B (2) exempted all the properties vesting in the Central Government under section 2, from of all legal processes. Though the case was fixed for evidence, yet the appellants did not bring any material on the file in support of their claim that they held the land as occupancy tenants. Furthermore, under section 5 (2) the Sale Certificate is to be treated as a conclusive proof of the acquisition of title by the purchaser in whose favour the certificate is granted.
' In view of the provisions of the Ordinance, in respect of the ouster of jurisdiction of the civil Courts, coupled with the appellants' failure to bring necessary material on the record, the learned two Courts below rightly decided issue regarding the jurisdiction, against the appellants.
5. It may be observed that the appellants questioned the validity of the sale. In substance, the legality of the Sale Certificate issued to the respondent by the Central Government was ascribed.
Pakistan was thus a necessary party, but was not impleaded as such. The suit could not proceed in the absence of the necessary party. The learned counsel, however, submitted, that Pakistan can be impleaded as a party even now. I am unable to agree with him. The cause of action arose to the appellants in 1963, when the Sal Certificate was issued under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. Read with section 22 of the Limitation Act, the suit against Pakistan would be hopelessly barred by time.
6. The findings of the learned two Courts below on the other issue regarding dismissal of appellants previous suit and consequently non-maintainability of the second suit, are also well-founded. The view taken by the learned two Courts is in conformity with law.
7. There is no merit in this appeal. Dismissed in limine.