Regular Second Appeal No. 4152 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4152 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 07, 2009 Punjab Wakf Board Ambala Cantt ...........Appellant Versus Ram Chander and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Narender Yadav,Advocate for Mr.A.R.Takkar, Advocate the Appellant. ** Sabina, J. Punjab Wakf Board Ambala Cantt (hereinafter referred to `Wakf Board') has filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against defendants Ram Chander and others regarding the property in dispute. The suit of the Wakf Board was decreed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.2005. In appeal, the Additional District Judge, Rewari reversed the judgment of the trial Court and vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.2008, the suit of the plaintiff-Wakf Board was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, reads as under:- “Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt, through its Estate Officer, Punjab Wakf Board, Rewari was owner in possession of the property i.e. grave-yard as detailed in para no.1 of the plaint and shown with letters ABCD in Regular Second Appeal No. 4152 of 2008 2 red colours in the site plan attached therewith since long, the survey in respect of which had been got conducted by the Punjab Government under Commissioner Ambala Division relating to which a gazette notification dated 17.4.1971 stood published but the defendants being the members of a gang were bent upon to forcibly and illegally encroach upon the aforesaid graveyard situated within the Abadi by way of excavating foundations without having any right, title or interest whatsoever therewith. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the defendants several times to desist but to no avail. It is further averred that if during the pendency of the suit, the defendants succeeded in taking over the forcible possession of the suit land by way of raising construction after excavating the foundations or erecting the fencing thereon, then, the defendants be directed to remove the debris etc. from the suit property at their own expenses by way of decree of mandatory injunction. Hence, the suit. 3. On notice, the defendants appeared through their respective counsel and filed joint written statement while taking the preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that neither the plaintiff was owner in possession of the disputed land nor it had any concern or connection whatsoever therewith and the site plan in this regard submitted by the plaintiff was wrong and against the factual position existing at the spot. On the contrary, the defendants were owners in possession of the suit property since the time of their ancestors. The alleged notification did not relate to the suit property and even if it is proved that the notification in Regular Second Appeal No. 4152 of 2008 3 question was relating to the suit property even then the same was wrong, baseless null and void and without jurisdiction. Neither the defendants had any faith in Muslim region not their ancestors had ever dedicated the disputed site to Muslim religion. The plaintiff knowingly and intentionally did not depict the street situated towards the western side of the disputed property. The defendant No.1 had already filled in the foundations at the disputed site whereon the stones were lying and the JHOPARI i.e. hut was existing. Besides, the defendant No.1 tethered his cattle in the disputed property after having erected barbed fencing on the disputed site. The disputed site had never remained as graveyard nor any corpse was buried therein. In the end, the defendants prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “i) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property as alleged?OPP ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP iii) Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit?OPD iv) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD v) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit?OPD vi) Relief.” Regular Second Appeal No. 4152 of 2008 4 After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Wakf Board has filed a suit basing its claim on the Gazette notification dated 17.4.1971 Exhibit PW2/1. The case of the Wakf Board is that the suit property was a graveyard and had been declared to be a Wakf property vide notification dated 17.4.1971. On the other hand, the case of the defendants was that they were owner in possession of the suit land since the time of their ancestors. The notification dated 17.4.1971 did not relate to the suit property. It is a settled proposition of the law that the plaintiff has to plead and prove his case and has to stand on his own legs. Plaintiff can not draw any benefit from the weakness in evidence led by the defendants. Learned Additional District Judge has observed that Plaintiff Wakf Board has failed to produce any document as to who dedicated the suit property to it nor any document of delivery of possession was produced. The plaintiff Wakf Board has placed reliance only on the Gazette notification but had failed to prove on record any other document to establish its title. The plaintiff had failed to prove that the suit property was being used as a graveyard. The learned Additional Distinct Judge, thus, rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-Wakf Board. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 07, 2009 arya Regular Second Appeal No. 4152 of 2008 5