RSA No. 4944 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4944 of 2002 Decided on : 19-03-2009 Ahmed Sayeed ....Appellant VERSUS Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. Through its Estate Officer, Hoshiarpur. ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. K.S.Cheema, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the respondent. MAHESH GROVER, J This is defendant's appeal directed against the judgments of the learned Trial Court dated 9.12.1998 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 31.5.2002. The plaintiff-respondent Punjab Wakf Board filed a suit for possession of property which was in possession of the appellant-defendant by alleging that it is the owner of the suit property. It was averred that the appellant-defendant had approached it for leasing out area of 494 square yards out of Takia which is within the abadi deh of village Mahilpur, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur and the same was leased out to him but he failed to deposit the rent and therefore, notice was issued to him to deposit arrears of rent for the period from 1.4.1991 to 29.2.1992. But no rent was paid. The appellant rather denied the tenancy and ownership of the Wakf Board-plaintiff. In the written statement filed by the appellant he pleaded that RSA No. 4944 of 2002 2 he is in possession of the suit property since 1952 and all his sons and daughters were born in the house in dispute. The appellant denied the ownership of the plaintiff-respondent which was claimed by him on the basis of a notification dated 1.1.1972 and also pleaded that the property was never dedicated to Muslims. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession?OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit?OPP. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not property valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD. 6. Whether the suit plan is incorrect?OPD. 7. Relief. After appraisal of the evidence before it, learned Trial Court concluded the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. In appeal, findings of the learned Trial Court were affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. In the present Regular Second Appeal, learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the findings of both the Courts below has contended that merely because a notification was issued declaring the property to be Wakf property, the same would not be binding upon his right as he is third party to it. He also pleaded that the findings are perverse and have been recorded contrary to the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the findings recorded by both the Courts below that factum RSA No. 4944 of 2002 3 of ownership could not be disputed by the appellant in view of the fact that he himself had applied for leasing out the property to him and once this application has concededly been made by him, it means that he has admitted the ownership of the Wakf Board and consequently there is hardly any ambiguity on this issue. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgments. There is no denial to the fact that a notification had been issued which is on record and the property has been notified as Takia and Wakf property. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it does not bind him and the ownership of the respondent does not stand established from mere notification. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is totally misplaced. The notification dated 1.1.1972 confers a substantial right upon the respondent. The property was declared as Takia by way of the notification. The appellant himself had submitted an application Ex.PA alongwith site plan of the property which is on record as Ex. P1 and submitted an affidavit Ex.PB and site plan Ex. PC and application Ex.PD seeking leasing out of the said property as a tenant and impliedly admitted the ownership of the respondent. That apart there is evidence in the shape of the witnesses who testified that the property had been leased out to the appellant. Courts below have rightly held that once the possession of the appellant is held to be permissive as a lessee under the respondent, he is precluded from challenging the ownership. The notification dated 1.1.1972 conclusively establishes the right of ownership in favour of the respondent-Board and when all these factors are taken into consideration cumulatively,the findings recorded by both the Courts below RSA No. 4944 of 2002 4 cannot be termed to be perverse so as to warrant any interference in regular second appeal. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. March 19, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge