Judgment Manak Mohta, J.-By this appeal, the plaintiff-appellant Mukhtiyar Ahmed has assailed the Judgment and decree dated 110.1984 passed by the learned District Judge, Balotra Camp at Barmer in Civil Original Suit No. 18 of 1983 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of this appeal are as under:- The plaintiff stated in his plaint that a plot measuring 19- 4" x 58 -8" is situated in Teliyon Ka Bas at Barmer. The property stated in the plaint was in his possession from the time of his grand father Ismail, a patta of this land was granted by the former Jagirdar of Barmer to his grand-father in Samvat 1977. The plaintiff stated that this property was never declared evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for short the Act of 1950) or composite property under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (for short the Act of 1951). The plaintiff further alleged that defendant No. 4 Tehsildar, Barmer on 22.05.1980 issued sale proclamation including the above mentioned property in connection with Suit No. 192 of 1977 ( 84 J.U 60) on behalf of defendant No. 5 State Competent Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. It was stated that when he came to know these facts he filed written protest on 07.06.1980 before the Competent Officer stating, inter alia, that with regard to the plaintiff s property, the sale proclamation was wrongly issued. His property was never declared evacuee property or composite property. It was alleged that the property was auctioned by the Tehsildar, Barmer on 28.06.1980 in favour of respondent No. 6. The State Competnet Officer without taking into consideration the written objections made by the plaintiff . During pendency of the objections, he confirmed the auction proceedings and issued sale certificate in favour of defendant No. 6. It is further said that the protest petition was dismissed on 17.01.1983 for non-appearance. The plaintiff again moved an application to restore that protest petition but that too was dismissed on 18.04.1983. Meanwhile the State Competent Officer issued a sale certificate on 10.03.1983 in favour of defendant No. 6. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that the description of the concerned evacuee property was different. The plaintiff again moved an application to restore that protest petition but that too was dismissed on 18.04.1983. Meanwhile the State Competent Officer issued a sale certificate on 10.03.1983 in favour of defendant No. 6. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that the description of the concerned evacuee property was different. The State Competent Officer asked verification from the Tehsildar, Barmer but the Tehsildar without making enquiry into the matter wrongly repotred that the plaintiff s property was evacuee property. The plaintiff stated that on the basis of these averments, he filed a civil suit alleging that the total auction proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction and prayed that the auction proceedings as well as sale certificate be quashed. He also sought a relief of declaration of title and injunction with regard to the suit property. 3. In reply, filed on behalf of defendants No. 1 to 5, it was stated that the allegations made in the plaint were not correct. In fact, the property in dispute belonged to Hussain and Tannu S/o Alfoo, by Caste Musalman Teli. During partition when they left India for Pakistan, their property, after due enquiry, was declared evacuee property in Suit No.23/53-54 on 18.04.1955. Further it was stated that on the protest made by Smt. Sakina d/o Alfoo, her 1/5th share was recognized and on that basis, this property was declared composite property under the Act of 1951 and was ordered to auction. Meanwhile Jaitoon d/o Smt. Sakila and mother of the present plaintiff , also made protest but that was dismissed. After getting the correct verification of boundaries by the Tehsildar, the property was auctioned and the sale certificate was issued. Meanwhile the plaintiff filed a protest petition but later on, he did not appear and hence his protest petition was dismissed and restoration application was also dismissed. It was submitted that under the concerned Acts, the jurisdiction of civil Court is barred. The defendant No. 6 also filed a reply stating therein that this property was declared evacuee property and on the protest of Smt. Sakila, the property was declared as composite property. It was stated that he purchased the property in open auction on 28.06.1980 and he is entitled to get possession thereof . It was also submitted that with regard to such property, the civil suit is not maintainable. 4. It was stated that he purchased the property in open auction on 28.06.1980 and he is entitled to get possession thereof . It was also submitted that with regard to such property, the civil suit is not maintainable. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned lower Court on 30.08.1984 framed the following issues for smooth disposal of the case: Þ1- vk;k okn i= la- 1 esa nkkZ;k x;k IYkkWV e; ik] Nijk vkfn oknh dh feyfd;r o dCts ds gSAwftls oknh viuh feyfd;r dk djkj nsus dk vf /kdkjh gS \ ---------- oknh 2- vk;k okn i= la- 6 esa nkkZbZ xbZ eqdnek ua- 54@55 ,oa ,fllVsUV dLVksfM;u tks/kiqj tksu j ds eqdnek la- 84@60@192@77 esa ? stks/kiqf "kr rkjh[k 18-04-55 dh ,ohD;w izksiVhZ dh eqruktk tk;nkn ls dksbZ Hkh lekurk ugha gS D;kssfd lEifr ds ikM+ksl ls fHkUurk gS \ ---------- oknh 3- vk;k izfroknh la- 5 jkT; l{ke vf /kdkjh] t;iqj }kjk oknh dh dCts dh tk;nkn dks fuyke djus dh reke dk;okgh fonkÅV T;fjMsZwDku gS ,oa 28-06-80 dks fd;k x;k fuykeh vknsk dkfcy fujLr ds gS \ ------------oknh 4-vk;k izfroknhx.k ds f[kykQ oknh fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf /kdkjh gS fd izfroknhx.k oknh ds dCts esa fdlh izdkj dk n[ky u djs rFkk u gh iqfyl dh enn ls dCtk izkIr djs \ ------------oknh 5-vk;k ;g okn bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf /kdkj dk ugha gS \ ------- izfroknh 6-vk;k nkok e;kn cgkj gS \ --------- izfroknh 7- vk;k oknh us oknxzLr lEifr dh cktkj dher de fy[kkbZ gS tks 50]000@& gtkj gksuh pkfg, ftl ij dksVZ Qhl Hkh de yxkbZ gS \ -------- izfroknh 8- vU; lgk;rk \Þ 5. Both issues No. 5 and 6 were treated to be legal issues by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the case was fixed for argument on legal issues No. 5 and 6. During course of argument, issue No. 6 was not pressed by the defendants side and hence the same was decided against them. The remaining issue No. 5 was with regard to jurisdiction of the civil Court. The learned lower Court, after hearing both the parties, found that with regard to dispute under the evacuee property or composite property under the Act of 1950 and the Act of 1951, the jurisdiction of civil Court is barred. The remaining issue No. 5 was with regard to jurisdiction of the civil Court. The learned lower Court, after hearing both the parties, found that with regard to dispute under the evacuee property or composite property under the Act of 1950 and the Act of 1951, the jurisdiction of civil Court is barred. On the basis of findings, issue No. 5 was decided in favour of the defendants and suit was dismissed vide Judgment dated 112.1984. 6. During the course of argument, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned lower Court has wrongly concluded issue No. 5 against the appellant and dismissed the suit. The learned Counsel urged that the property in dispute is in his possession from the time of his grand-father. This property was never declared as an evacuee property or composite property. He further argued that the plaintiff-appellant made protest against the auction proceedings but without considering his objection, the sale certificate was issued. The plaintiff-appellant has filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the civil Court. It was further submitted that on the pleadings of the parties, a specific issue No. 2 has been framed and that issue was to be adjudicated whether the property of which description was given in the plaint ever declared as an evacuee property or composite property but the learned lower Court without deciding that issue, dismissed the suit on the basis of finding of issue No. 5 that was said to be wrong. The learned Counsel submitted that in fact the finding on issue No. 5 was based on the conclusion of issue No. 2. In this way, learned Counsel urged that issue No. 5 should not have been decided before issue No. 2 7. The learned Counsel also submitted that issue No. 5 was not a pure question of law. It was not proper to decide issue No. 5 without taking evidence but the learned trial Court decided only on the oral submissions. The learned Counsel in support of his contentions cited the authorities (1) AIR 1960 All 626 , (2) AIR 1968 Delhi 162, (3) AIR 1959 MP 399 , (4) AIR 1964 Patna 338 and (5) AIR 1964 Punjab 110. 8. On the basis of these submissions made prayer that the Judgment and decree of the learned lower Court be quashed and the appeal may be allowed. 9. 8. On the basis of these submissions made prayer that the Judgment and decree of the learned lower Court be quashed and the appeal may be allowed. 9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State supported the Judgment and decree of the learned lower Court and further submitted that the jurisdiction of civil Court was barred with regard to disputes relating to evacuee property or composite property. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 submitted that property in dispute was declared long back as composite property. Respondent No. 6 has purchased the property in dispute in open auction. If there was any dispute, it was to be decided by the competent officer. The appellant himself moved objection but later on, he did not appear. He submitted that the decision of the Competent Officer became final. The plaintiff , if felt aggrieved, should have moved the Competent appellate authority. That he has not availed. The jurisdiction of the civil Court in this respect is barred. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 drew my attention towards the provisions of Section 18 and Section 20 of the Act of 1951. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 also argued that under Section 46 of the Act of 1950, the jurisdiction of civil Court is barred. He further submitted that the relief claimed by the plaintiff is that the auction proceedings be set aside and the sale certificate be quashed, but such disputes are not entertainable by the civil Court. The learned lower Court after considering the relevant provisions of the Act of 1950 and the Act of 1951 rightly concluded issue No. 5. It was also submitted that the plaintiff-appellant never prayed to produce the evidence before hearing on issue No. 5 or prayed to decide issue No. 2 first. Now he is estopped to raise the contentions in this regard. It was also submitted that as the jurisdiction of civil Court was barred, there was no need to take evidence and decide issue No. 2. The authorities cited by the appellants side are not applicable and not supporting the contentions raised by the appellants side. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 6, in support of his contentions, placed reliance on AIR 1968 SC 169 and AIR 1966 SC 1438 and prayed that the appeal be disallowed with costs. 10. The authorities cited by the appellants side are not applicable and not supporting the contentions raised by the appellants side. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 6, in support of his contentions, placed reliance on AIR 1968 SC 169 and AIR 1966 SC 1438 and prayed that the appeal be disallowed with costs. 10. After considering the submissions made by both the sides and after perusing of the record, it is revealed that at the level of the State Competent Officer, Jaipur, this property was declared as composite property under the above referred Act of 1951 and it was decided to auction the said property. Thereafter, on behalf of respondent No. 5 State Competnet Officer, Jaipur, respondent No. 4 Tehsildar, Barmer under the provisions of the Act of 1951 issued proclamation of sale on 22.05.1980 of this property and in pursuance of that proclamation open auction was made on 28.06.1980 and it was finalized in favour of respondent No. 6 being the highest bidder. It is also revealed that the appellant challenged the auction proceedings by filling the protest petition before the competent officer but later on, he did not appear. The competent officer dismissed his protest petition on 17.01.1983. An attempt was also made by the plaintiff- appellant to restore that protest petition but that was also dismissed on 18.04.1983. No further appeal was filed. In this way, these orders became final. In the meantime, the sale certificate in favour of respondent No. 6 was also issued on 10.03.1983. The plaintiff challenged these orders in suit. But under Section 18 of the Act of 1951, the remedy is barred in civil Courts . For ready reference, Section 18 of the Act of 1951 is reproduced below:- “18. Finality of orders:-Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act every order made by any appellate officer or competent officer shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court by way of an appeal or revision or in any original suit, application or execution proceedings.” 11. Finality of orders:-Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act every order made by any appellate officer or competent officer shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court by way of an appeal or revision or in any original suit, application or execution proceedings.” 11. It was contended on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction and in that position, the civil suit was entertainable and the civil Court was competent to grant relief in favour of the plaintiff but looking to the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff has challenged the auction proceedings taken by respondent No. 4 and further the confirmation of sale and issue of sale certificate by respondent No. 5. For those reliefs, the jurisdiction of the civil Courts was barred under Section 20 of the Act of 1951 to entertain such disputes. Section 20 of the Act of 1951 is reproduced below: - “20. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts barred in certain matters:- .(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil or revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to any claim to composite property which the competent officer is empowered by or under this Act to decide and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the competent officer in respect of the composite property shall be granted by any civil Court or other authority. .(2) Allsuits and proceedings pending before a civil or revenue Court at the commencement of this Act shall, in so far as they relate to any claim filed before a competent officer under Section 7, be stayed during the pendency of any proceeding under this Act. .(3) Nothing in Sub-section (1) shall prevent any civil or revenue Court from entertaining any suit or proceeding relating to any right in respect of any payment made, or property transferred or delivered, to a claimant under the provisions of this Act which any other claimant or other person may be entitled by due process of law to enforce against the claimant to whom the payment is made or the property is delivered or transferred.” 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant, in support of his contentions, cited AIR 1960 All 626 but this authority is related to writ jurisdiction and on different matters. AIR 1968 Delhi 162, is related to a suit for rendition of accounts in respect of rent received by the Custodian but that is not the subject-matter of the present suit. AIR 1959 MP 399 and AIR 1964 Patna 338, in these authorities, the matter in dispute were different. In the present case, the property was allegedly declared as an evacuee property in the year 1955 and on the protest of Smt. Sakina, later on declared as composite property. The authority cited by the appellants side AIR 1964 Punjab 110, is related to the scope and power of the Competent Officer to issue injunctions. In this way, these authorities do not support the contentions of the appellants side. 13. The appellant has challenged the auction proceedings before the Competent Officer and has raised all the disputes with regard to declaration of evacuee property or composite property under the Acts but later on, he himself did not appear and no good and sufficient cause was found for his non-appearance. Hence his protest petition was dismissed. In my opinion, all the disputes raised by the appellants side were entertainable by the Competent Officer. The jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in this respect. The dispute is also raised with regard to declaration of evacuee property but under Section 46 of the Act of 1950, again the jurisdiction of civil Courts is barred. If any dispute was to be raised in this respect that was to be decided by the Competent Officer. The appellant has raised the contentions with regard to boundaries of the said plot, the same would have considered by the Competent Officer, if he would have appeared but he has missed the opportunity. For ready reference, Section 46 of the Act of 1950 is reproduced as under: - “46. Jurisdiction of civil Courts barred in certain matters.-Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil or revenue Court shall have jurisdiction- .(a) toentertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not evacuee property; or .(b) ...... ............. .................. ............. Jurisdiction of civil Courts barred in certain matters.-Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil or revenue Court shall have jurisdiction- .(a) toentertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not evacuee property; or .(b) ...... ............. .................. ............. .(c) to question the legality of any action taken by the Custodian under this Act; or .(d) in respect of any matter which the Custodian General or the Custodian is empowered by or under this Act to determine.” 14. In this way, under both the Acts, the jurisdiction of civil Courts was barred. The authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents are AIR 1966 SC 1438 and AIR 1968 SC 169 . In these authorities, there were disputes with regard to evacuee property and it was held that the jurisdiction of civil Courts is barred. 15. I have considered the other contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that without deciding issue No. 2 and without taking evidence, the learned lower Court should not have decided issue No. 5 but in my opinion this contentions are not tenable where separate issue No. 5 was framed which was related to the jurisdiction of the civil Courts and with the consent of the parties, the matter was fixed for argument on issues No. 5 and 6. From the appellants side, it was not prayed to lead evidence on issue No. 2 or on issue No. 5. Now the appellant cannot raise the contentions in this respect. Issue No. 5 was also based on legal provisions, in my opinion there was no need to take evidence on that issue. The learned lower Court, after hearing both the sides, has rightly decided and no illegality has been committed in the conclusion. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant are liable to be rejected. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby disallowed and the Judgment and decree of the learned lower Court is affirmed. 17. No order as to costs