RSA No.1585 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.5019-20-C of 2008 RSA No.1585 of 2008(O & M) Date of Decision:15.12.2008 Abdul Razak & Ors. ....appellants Versus Punjab Wakf Board & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Sanjay Verma,Advocate for the appellants **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. CM No.5019-20-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded in the application, delay in filing and refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.1585 of 2008(O & M) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 Punjab Wakf Board filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the appellants from the suit land on the ground that the land was owned and administered by respondent No.1. According to jamabandi for the year 1993-94 it was recorded as owner through Mohabbat son of Nadar Shah and Piru son of Majnu and appellants were in unauthorized possession of the suit land and appellants were never inducted by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 over the suit land and they forcibly occupied the same and hence respondent No.1 filed suit against the appellant. The appellants No.1 to 4 filed their joint written statement and contended that suit had not been filed by the duly authorized person RSA No.1585 of 2008 2 and suit filed by the plaintiff itself was not maintainable and no cause of action arises at all to them. They further contended that father of appellants No.1 to 4 was mohatmim of the land bearing khasra No.31/1/2 min(5-3) on behalf of respondent No.1 and he cultivated the said land without payment of any rent and after the death of their father, the appellants were continuing in cultivating possession of the said land without payment of rent. Therefore, their possession was open, continuous and hostile to the whole world and same had matured into full ownership with the lapse of time. It was further contended that earlier the land in dispute was recorded as Takia whereas there was no takia and it was further contended that the land bearing khasra No.21//21/2 was previously under the cultivating possession of one Mohabbat son of Nadar Shah, who was mohatmim of the said land on behalf of the Board. Mohabbat had executed a Will on 19.07.1966 in favour of defendant No.1 and according to that Will the said land was in cultivating possession of defendant No.1. Therefore, respondent No.1/plaintiff had no right and interest in the same and the suit is liable to be dismissed. Parties led evidence in support of their respective pleas. After hearing arguments, trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs and a decree for possession of the suit land by way of ejectment of the defendants was passed in favour of the plaintiff and defendants were directed to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff within two months. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 27.08.2004, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhari, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.02.2007. Still not satisfied, the appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. RSA No.1585 of 2008 3 Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the father of the appellants was in possession of the property in dispute, as mohatmims and after their deaths, they are continuing in possession without payment of any rent and therefore the suit of the plaintiff- respondents is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is without any merit. Admittedly, the defendants have come into possession of the property in dispute being the sons of mohatmim i.e.Manager of the Wakf property. Thus, they have no independent right. Their possession over the suit land could not be in their individual capacity, rather the same was for the benefit of the Wakf, which was under the control and management of the Board. The appellants at the most can be said to have stepped into the shoes of Mohabbat and Piru which came to an end the moment they died and the defendants could not claim their possession over the disputed land in the capacity of mohatmim. The argument of the appellants that they are continuing in possession of the suit land since the time of their forefathers without payment of any rent and in this way their possession as owner is hostile to the whole world and therefore they have acquired ownership rights by way of adverse possession is also liable to be rejected. The defendants in their written statement have claimed their right to possess the suit land through Piru and Mohabbat who were mohatmims and it was not asserted that their title was hostile to the true owner. In any case, there is no evidence to establish their right on the property in dispute on the plea of adverse possession. Even otherwise, their plea is that their possession is permissive and in these circumstances, the plea of adverse possession was not available to them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The State of Punjab versus Brigadier Sukhjit Singh 1993(3) RRR RSA No.1585 of 2008 4 209 has held that permissive possession, however long, cannot itself be said to have become hostile by a long lapse of time. Hence, this appeal is without any merit. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 15.12.2008 neenu