JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, M. - The revision filed by Shamim Ahmad in Commissioner's Court has come here on a reference for remand. 2. The facts are: The claim of Shamim Ahmad has been set forth by his Mukhtar-Aam Kalian and Jai Prakash Sharma. They have filed an objection in Tahsildar's court on 14.10.1982. This avers that the estate was Mohammad Ashfaq's who has executed a Will favouring Shamim Ahmad; that Mohd. Ashfaq never migrated to Pakistan and land never vested in Custodian: the deed of conveyance in favour of Daulat Ram's 6 persons executed on different dates between 1977 to 1982 are sham and inoperative. The entry of their names in revenue records is un-supportable. The request is for dismissal of application. 3. The case of Daulat Ram's is that Mohd. Ashfaq has migrated to Pakistan and died there. His estate vested in custodian and deeds of conveyance have conferred title on them. So their names are apt to be recorded. 4. Six mutation cases were registered on Daulat Ram's application, allottees of custodian. One case on application of Mohd. Shamim and 8th case on application of Mohd. Habibur Rahman and Zakur Rahman alias Kalian. By order of Tahsildar dated 20.10.1982 all eight cases were consolidated and mutation case No. 482 was made leading file. Parties led evidences documental and oral. Heard. Naib Tahsildar, Lone by his order dated 31.8.1983 ordered 'mutation of names of applicants Daulat Ram's, allottees transferrers from custodian. 5. Shamim Ahmad carried an appeal in the court of Collector. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghaziabad by his order dated 8.5.1984 has dismissed the appeal. 6. Still, then, a revision lodged by Shamim Ahmad. Addl. Commissioner, Meerut by his order dated 30.8.1984 has submitted his recommendation to set aside Sub-Divisional Officer's order dated 8.5.1984 and to remand the case for further and deeper investigation and finding on certain crucial points and, then, to decide afresh as is proposed. 7. Heard far and against the recommendation. 8. Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer, on an appraisal of available material on record, have recorded a clear finding that Mohd. Ashfaa had migrated to Pakistan in 1947 and his estate was declared evacuee property. This is not open to challenge in revision unless cogent reasons are seen. I do not find any Khatoni extract of 1376 to 1379 Fasli records Mohd. Ashfaq resident of Delhi and gone to Pakistan. Ashfaa had migrated to Pakistan in 1947 and his estate was declared evacuee property. This is not open to challenge in revision unless cogent reasons are seen. I do not find any Khatoni extract of 1376 to 1379 Fasli records Mohd. Ashfaq resident of Delhi and gone to Pakistan. Proceedings began and land was declared evacuee and allotments made in favour of Daulat Ram's by Tahsildar in 1948 as set out on his behalf in writ petition No. 1669 of 1983 in High Court which finds mention in paragraph two page 2, certified copy on record. The process of settlement finally euluminated in deeds of conveyance, executed in between 1977 to 1982. Ashfaq Ahmad, suppose he was in India, did not flick a finger when the fortunes of his large estate were running down to his uter disadvantage. From 1948 to 1977/1982,30 years or thereabouts and he is immolished. This is not true. Surely, he went to Pakistan and died there, Shamim Ahmad says in 1973. Shamim Ahmad says Will in his favour on 16.7.1950 and he has entered into possession of plot soon after execution thereof, as is documented in writ petition, on submission made on his behalf. Should I believe that Ashfaq Ahmad gave away all his land holding with possession to Shamim Ahmad in his life time to live a poor man for 23 years from 1950 to 1973? Will fakes effect after death that occurs in 1973. Why, then, possession is claimed from 1950? The courage to take claim of possession arose because Ashfaq had migrated in 1947. If at all Shamim Ahmad came in possession in 1959, as he states, why so entry of his possession in any revenue record in any capacity whatsoever from 1950 to 1982, the year of filing mutation applications. This comes to 32 unrecorded years. His claim is barred by limitation, if possessory title is considered, after three years from July 1, 1952. The Will dated 16.5.1950 became operative in 1973 when testator died. Shamim Ahmad moves mutation application in 1932. Why this inordinate delay of 9 years. No credible explanation? The silence speaks volumes about h-is motives. Why no date of Will disclosed in objection filed on 14.10.1982. Original unregistered Will not placed' on record in this file. Mukhtar name not filed. Will proven or not is not executed by testator. The legate will not take. Why this inordinate delay of 9 years. No credible explanation? The silence speaks volumes about h-is motives. Why no date of Will disclosed in objection filed on 14.10.1982. Original unregistered Will not placed' on record in this file. Mukhtar name not filed. Will proven or not is not executed by testator. The legate will not take. I agree with comments made by Sub-Divisional Officer in paragraph two page 2 of his order. He has the insight to locate the source why and when the Will has come about. Land prices arose considerably high near the disputed placed. Factories built, trade and commerce of late has prospered. Shamim Ahmad was stirred to his bones and he lodges a report of Ashfaq Ahmad's death on 13.7.1973 in Nagar Palika, Meerut on 1.7.1982. Why this wisful need to report death after 9 years? Who was restless? Is Shamim Ahmad to enlarge his territorial claim? This set him relentlessly to move from court to court and from one lawsuit to another in diverse legal proceedings. The time began in 1982 is crucial. He joins in mutation on 6.8.1982 soon enough after report of death in Nagar Mahapalika on 1.7.1982 with the new contrived theory of death in India. In a month's time he returned high and dry and was up and doing. The efforts ended in despair. His writ petition failed on 10.4.1987. Injunction application earlier dismissed on 24.9.1982. Appeal dismissed on 12.7.1985; all the orders strongly refutting his claim based on unregistered testatment and possession. 9. Additional Commissioner misdirected himself in recommending for remanding the case against principles in 1986 R.D. 165 and 1984 R.D. 208. It is too late in the evening to go to the first principle in mutation in revision; to enquire whether Ashfaq Ahmad had migrated to Pakistan in 1947 or not. When facts speak for themselves a definitive conclusion can be reached, as here. 10. Counsel for revisionist has argued on many points. He has urged that Mohd. Ashfaq has not migrated to Pakistan because there is no evidence in support thereof. I do not agree. The motivated report lodged by Shamim Ahmad after 9 years of his death will not show that he has died in India. Section 7 (1) of Evacuee Property Act takes cognisance of matter in which cause of action arose before 7.5.1954; 1965 ALJ 1166. Mohd. Ashfaq has migrated before that in 1947. I do not agree. The motivated report lodged by Shamim Ahmad after 9 years of his death will not show that he has died in India. Section 7 (1) of Evacuee Property Act takes cognisance of matter in which cause of action arose before 7.5.1954; 1965 ALJ 1166. Mohd. Ashfaq has migrated before that in 1947. It is, then so difficult after 43 years to ferret out evidence from evacuee department, abolished long back. Moreover, one cannot quest ion that the property has vested in custodian after declaration under Section 7 (1) Evacuee Property Act has been made: 1986 R.D. 34. When once the declaration has been made that land has vested in custodian, Section 46 bars the jurisdiction of civil and revenue court in this matter. AIR 1966 S.C. 1436 and AIR 1969 SC 169. Therefore, we begin with the starting point that land has vested in custodian. The consequential revenue entries for years bear the burden of that declaration. The remand for collection of evidence and investigation of this point is clearly unsupported in law. Of the many things that are legally permitted by Civil Code the least pleasant to me, and, therefore, me think, to legislature", is remand of a case when a court itself can independently arrive at an eneluctable conclusion based on evidence. In this case, surely, we can do. In the Anglo-Gaon system of jurisprudence, unlike the continental, the courts function is only "to hold the ring" and play fair umpire; it cannot independently order collection and investigation of crucial facts in relation to raging controversy beyond the evidence oral or documental, led by the contestants according to their own conception. 11. The counsel for the revisionist urged that since the name of custodian is not in 'Khatoni, the names of Daulat Ram's cannot be entered in their place. I think after the land has vested in custodian, the non-entry of custodian's in the record is immaterial. Their names can be so recorded. He also contends that deed of conveyance are not specific; plot No. 52 area 90-19-0 is stated in all conveyances. I find that ? share of the total area has been transferred to each of the applicants. This point fails. 12. On all I consider, the order of Tahsildar dated 31.8.1983 and Sub-Divisional Officer's dated 8.5.1984 are affirmed. He also contends that deed of conveyance are not specific; plot No. 52 area 90-19-0 is stated in all conveyances. I find that ? share of the total area has been transferred to each of the applicants. This point fails. 12. On all I consider, the order of Tahsildar dated 31.8.1983 and Sub-Divisional Officer's dated 8.5.1984 are affirmed. I see no reason to disagree with their concurrent findings on all crucial issues. The recommendation in the reference for remand is rejected. The names of Daulat Ram's all six applicants, be recorded over the land in dispute. This order will govern all companion represented Revision Nos. 44 to 60/84-85. Order accordingly.