CR No.4232 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4232 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.07.2010 Punjab Wakf Board ..Petitioner Vs. Doaba College & Anr. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rohit Sood, Advocate, for the respondents. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision petition under Proviso to Section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.5.2008 passed by the learned Wakf Tribunal, Jalandhar under the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short the Tribunal) vide which suit for possession filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for possession of land measuring 7 kanals 14 marlas, stands dismissed. The petitioner/Wakf Board filed a suit seeking possession of CR No.4232 of 2009 2 the property described in the Head-note of the plaint by claiming it to be the property belonging to the Punjab Wakf Board in pursuance to the notification issued by the Central Government dated 6.2.1971 and corrigendum dated 1.6.1996. The pleaded case of the Wakf Board was, that the suit property was leased out to the respondents on 1.5.1967 at a monthly rent of Rs.15/- (Rupees fifteen only) for a period of 11 months and rent note was executed by the defendants on 29.03.1968. It may be noticed here that the defendants are Doaba College through its Principal and The Management Committee, Doaba College, Jalandhar through its Chairman. There is no lease executed between the petitioner and defendants. It is further the case of the petitioner Board, that the respondents stopped making payment of rent since 1.4.1971 and therefore, they were liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,07,369/- (Rupees two lac seven thousand three hundred and sixty nine only) i.e. the amount calculated along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. It was also the case of the petitioner, that the respondents raised permanent constructions over the suit property by raising a huge building, instead of temporary construction permitted in terms of the rent deed and the letter of allotment. The case of the petitioner is also, that as per the terms of the lease deed, defendants were to deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff on demand but in spite of demand, they failed to do so, hence the CR No.4232 of 2009 3 suit. Suit was contested by raising preliminary objections with regard to the impleadment of the defendants. Plea raised by the defendant/ respondents was, that they are neither the tenants of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff has any concern with the property in dispute. Plaint was said to be bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. Stand of the defendants further was, that the property was being used by the defendants for the last more than 50 years, without any hindrance and objection from anybody, much less the petitioner and that, they have become owners thereof by adverse possession. Title of the petitioner to the property was denied. Suit land was said to be part and parcel of land belonging to Doaba College Jalandhar. Site plan placed on record by petitioner was disputed and it was claimed, that the suit was false and frivolous. Stand of the defendants on merit was, that Khasra numbers mentioned in the plaint were not owned by the plaintiff. The College was said to be running under the Control of Arya Shiksha Mandal, who denied having been taken the suit property on rent. All the averments made on merit by the plaintiff/petitioner were also denied. In the replication, averments made in the written statement were denied and that of the plaint were reiterated. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondent took the property in dispute on CR No.4232 of 2009 4 lease from the petitioner? OPP 2. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from the suit property on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPR 4. Relief. Issues No.1 and 2 were taken up together. In support of the issues, the petitioner examined its Estate Officer, Abdus Salam as PW 1, who supported the case set up by the Board in the plaint by filing an affidavit. He further placed on record notification dated 6.2.1978 Ex.PA, whereby land comprised in Khasra No.11308 situated in Jalandhar City was notified to be the property of Wakf Board. The petitioner also led evidence by placing on record photo copy of Jamabandi of the suit property for the year 2001 showing Smt. Chander Kanta, Smt. Naranjan Kaur and others as owners of the suit property with an entry made in the remarks column of Ex.P.2, vide mutation No.4152 showing that ownership of 6 kanals 5 marlas out of the total land 7 kanals 14 marlas was transferred in the name of Wakf Board on the asking of Central Government. Authority letter and notice issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was also proved on record by way of Ex.P.4 i.e. copy of Wahi Khata of Urban Lands maintained by Punjab Wakf Board showing therein rent payable. Vide Ex.P.6, the letter was placed on record from Chief Executive Officer CR No.4232 of 2009 5 addressed to the Estate Officer Wakf Board, Punjab asking him inter alia to manage the demarcation of the wakf property. Letter dated 17.3.2006 from Chief Executive Officer, Punjab Wakf Board was also placed on record asking the Principal Doaba College, Jalandhar to make payment of rent. PW 2 also reiterated the stand taken in the plaint. Defendants/respondents, on the other hand, examined Varinder Sabharwal, one of the members of the Managing Committee, Doaba College, Jalandhar as DW 1, who supported the pleaded case in the written statement. Learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, referred to above, concluded that claimed ownership by the petitioner was based upon the notification issued by the Central Government, whereas tenancy was claimed on the basis of lease deed Ex.P.3. Learned Tribunal recorded that all these assertions were denied by the defendants/respondents. Thereafter, by placing reliance on the judgments of this court in the cases of Punjab Urban Planning and Dev. Authority Vs. M/s Shiv Saraswati Iron and Steel Re-Rolling Mills 1998 (2) CCC 30 and Ram Dass Vs. Salim Ahmed 1991 (1) Judicial Reoports28 (Civil & Rent), held, that it was for the petitioner to prove its case, instead of relying on the weakness of the respondent and recorded a finding, that mere exhibition of a document, did not prove the document, as the party relying thereon was required to prove the document in terms of the requirement laid down in the Evidence Act. In support of this proposition, learned tribunal placed CR No.4232 of 2009 6 reliance on the judgment in the case of Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal 2004 (1) CCC 337 & Duttatraya Vs. Rangnath Gopalrao Kawathekar AIR 1971 SC 2548. The learned Tribunal thereafter held, that the copy of notification did not show, that the property in dispute was under the ownership of the Wakf Board. Similarly, the learned Tribunal did not rely on the lease deed, as it was merely a photo copy, the original of which was not produced. The learned Tribunal held, that the photo copy was not admissible, thus, mere exhibition of lease deed Ex.P.3, could not prove the case of the petitioner to hold, that the defendants were the tenants under the petitioner. The learned Tribunal also held that revenue record did not confer any title. The learned Tribunal rejected all the contentions raised by the petitioner, that the petitioner was owner of the property in dispute and that the defendants were tenants under the petitioner, for want of any proof. In view of finding referred to above it was also held that there was no question of the defendants being in arrears of rent. The petition was accordingly dismissed. Mr. B.R.Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the learned Tribunal failed to notice, that photo copy of the lease deed was duly exhibited, without any objection. The contention, therefore, was that it is not open to the respondents now to contest the lease deed, as no objection with regard to its execution was CR No.4232 of 2009 7 raised, when the evidence was led and document was duly exhibited. I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled law, that mere exhibition of a document, does not absolve the party to prove the document. Once the petitioner failed to prove the lease deed, in accordance with law by placing on record the original and examining the author thereof mere exhibition of it could not make to be admissible for being read in evidence, as rightly held by the learned Tribunal. There is another angle to Ex.P.3, it is shown to have been executed in favour of the Principal, who had no authority on behalf of the Management Committee of the College to enter into any contract. The petitioner did not implead him as party to the suit. The suit was filed against Doaba College and its management with whom there was no contract or lease. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petition was wrongly rejected, therefore, cannot be sustained and the finding of the learned trial court on this ground deserves to be upheld. It is also not disputed that notification on which reliance was placed to prove ownership was not shown to be qua the property in dispute. Even the revenue entries on which reliance was placed did not show, that the petitioner was owner of 7 kanals 14 marlas of land, in possession of the defendants. The petitioner, thus, failed to prove ownership of the land in dispute to seek possession. The learned Tribunal rightly held, that revenue entries are not document of title. The finding of learned Tribunal qua CR No.4232 of 2009 8 ownership is also affirmed. No merit. Dismissed, but with no order as to costs. 21.07.2010 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge