Judgment :- This is a case where the State has been deprived of realising its legal dues not only because of the cleverness of the litigant, but also because of the lapse on the part of the authorities. 2.The plaintiff/1st respondent's father was the successful bidder in the auction conducted for the year 1981-1982. He did not remit the entire amount and therefore steps to recover the same were initiated by the appellants. At that time, the second respondent/bidder filed W.P.No.4751 of 1983. This Court directed the second respondent to remit Rs.1,38,597.50 within six weeks and to give security for Rs.1,40,000/-. The writ appeal filed against that was also dismissed. 3.On 17.08.1987, notice of auction was given. The date of auction was 15.12.1987. To prevent this, the first respondent herein filed O.S.No.510 of 1987 for a declaration that the appellants cannot bring the properties to sale and for injunction. 4.The first respondent is none other than the son of the second respondent. The usual allegations of immoral living, alcoholism were made and it was stated that the second respondent's father has executed a Will on 01.02.1982 bequeathing his share in the properties in favour of the first respondent and the grandfather died on 25.10.1983 and the Will came into effect. It was also the case of the first respondent that he filed O.S.No.282 of 1987 against his own father, the second respondent for his half share in the ancestral properties in the hands of his father and obtained a decree and therefore under the Will as well as by virtue of the decree, he became entitled to 10.86 acres of land and this extent cannot be the subject matter of sale by the appellants. 5.The trial Court considered in detail the genuineness of the sale which was proved by examining the scribe as well as the attesting witness and the judgment and decree in O.S.No.282 of 1987 marked as Exs. A3 and A4 and came to the conclusion that the first respondent had proved his title regarding the aforesaid extent. The trial Court also took note of the fact that when the second respondent had bid at the auction, no Solvency Certificate was obtained from him. The appellants filed A.S.No.171 of 1990. This was also dismissed. Against this, the present second appeal has been filed. The trial Court also took note of the fact that when the second respondent had bid at the auction, no Solvency Certificate was obtained from him. The appellants filed A.S.No.171 of 1990. This was also dismissed. Against this, the present second appeal has been filed. 6.Learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the Will and the decree have been obtained only to deprive of the State of its lawful dues and he would also submit that the suit itself is not maintainable by virtue of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Ramanathan G., Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( 2000 (II) CTC 458 ) and Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India ( 1997 (5) SCC 536 ) were relied on by the learned counsel in support of his contentions. 7.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, however would submit that the proof of the Will and the decree in the earlier suit leave one in no doubt as to the entitlement of the first respondent to the extent of 10.86 acres. As regards the bar of suit, it was submitted that this ground cannot be sustained, and also that it was raised for the first time in second appeal. 8.Reliance was placed on the following judgments: (a) Abdul Vs. Bhawani (1966 SC 1718) (b) Ram Swarup Vs. Shikar Chand (1966 SC 893) (c) V.L.N.Temple Vs. I.Pattabhirami (1967 SC 781) (d) K.C.Dora vs. G.Annamanaidu (1974 SC 1069) (e) Oomor Sait Vs. O.Aslam Sait ( 2001 (3) CTC 269 ) (f) Dhulabhai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1969 SC 78) (g) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ramalinga (1986 SC 794) These judgments were relied on to show that the ousting of Civil Courts' jurisdiction cannot be lightly presumed and even when Civil Courts' jurisdiction is ousted, one must determine the exact extent of exclusion and the provision relating to exclusion of jurisdiction shall be strictly construed. 9.In 1969 SC 78 (cited supra), principles regarding exclusion of jurisdiction were laid down. In brief, they are as follows: (1).If the statute gives a finality to the orders of the Tribunals constituted thereunder, the Civil Courts' jurisdiction must be held to be excluded. But however, the exclusion will not cover the cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or there is violation of Principles of Natural Justice. In brief, they are as follows: (1).If the statute gives a finality to the orders of the Tribunals constituted thereunder, the Civil Courts' jurisdiction must be held to be excluded. But however, the exclusion will not cover the cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or there is violation of Principles of Natural Justice. (2).Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the Court, the Act should be examined to find whether the alternate remedy is adequate or sufficient and for this, the intendment of the Act must also be looked into. (3).Challenge to the provisions of a particular Act cannot be decided by the Tribunals constituted under the Act. (4).Where the provision has been declared as unconstitutional or when its vires is under challenge, it is open to the parties to file a suit. (5).Where there is no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits, suit will lie. (6).Questions of correctness of assessment apart from its constitutionality cannot be challenged before the Civil Court, unless the constitutionality of its correctness is under challenge. (7). Finally the basic principle was distilled which is that, the exclusion of jurisdiction shall not be readily inferred. 10. The Act bars Courts from granting permanent or temporary injunction restraining any proceeding which is being or about to be taken for. Section 56-A (i): the recovery of any sum or fee or both levied in consideration of the grant of any exclusive or other privilege under this Act or the rules made thereunder or any fee including vend fee or any duty levied by or under this Act or the rules made thereunder. Sub Clause (ii) relates to the grant of privilege which is not necessary for consideration in this appeal. 11. The suit prayer is not for injunction restraining the recovery of any sum or fee due. The injunction is in respect of bringing to sale by auction, the suit properties, which are claimed by the first respondent as his. Therefore, clearly Section 56 (A) does not deal with the injunction of the nature prayed for in this suit. Further, what was decided in the suit is the right and interest of the first respondent in the suit properties which were brought to sale. It is doubtful whether the machinery provided under the Act is empowered to decide this issue. Therefore, clearly Section 56 (A) does not deal with the injunction of the nature prayed for in this suit. Further, what was decided in the suit is the right and interest of the first respondent in the suit properties which were brought to sale. It is doubtful whether the machinery provided under the Act is empowered to decide this issue. A reading of the judgments of the Courts below shows that they have considered the genuineness and validity of the Will as also the nature of the earlier proceedings. These are matters which cannot be decided by the authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 12.Section 56 B also bars the Civil Courts' jurisdiction in respect of any action taken by such authorities in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. The power conferred by or under the Act for seizure or attachment of the properties and for bringing to sale will only relate to a defaulter bid such as the second respondent. Definitely, a third party's rights cannot be violated in the guise of exercise of power by the authority. A third party cannot also have no recourse or remedy for his grievance. 13. In 1997 (5) SCC 536 (cited supra), at Page No. 734, the Supreme Court dealt with the jurisdictional control of the superior courts in respect of actions of Subordinate Courts, Tribunals or other statutory bodies. 14. In this case the authorities do not have the jurisdiction to decide the question whether the Will in favour of the first respondent is genuine or whether the decree obtained in the suit is binding on the parties. Therefore, though the objection regarding the maintainability of the suit was permitted to be raised here for the first time, it cannot be accepted. 15. The plea of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the second respondent had systematically and intelligently secured his properties from being seized, may be true, but that will not help the state. The State has to blame its officers for the serious lapse of duty. If the appellants had obtained a Solvency Certificate from the second respondent there would have been ample material to show what were the properties he had declared as his. Then the ex-parte decree obtained by his son may be shown as abuse of process of law. The State has to blame its officers for the serious lapse of duty. If the appellants had obtained a Solvency Certificate from the second respondent there would have been ample material to show what were the properties he had declared as his. Then the ex-parte decree obtained by his son may be shown as abuse of process of law. But, as it stands, for the lapse of the Officers, the appellant will have to suffer. It is not possible to understand how the Officers failed to take a Solvency Certificate from the second respondent. That would have been an irrefutable evidence of the properties which he claimed to be his and definitely the second respondent would have listed all the properties that belonged to him, on the date when he bid the auction, to show his financial health. But now there is absolutely no evidence to show that the first and second respondents have cleverly manipulated matters to prevent the appellants from recovering what is due. The Courts can only act upon the oral and documentary evidence that is placed before them. The Courts cannot "peer behind the screen" when there is sufficient evidence on hand. Both the Courts below have considered the oral and documentary evidence properly and therefore while understanding the helplessness of the appellants herein, it is not possible to interfere in second appeal. The second appeal is dismissed. No costs.