CR No.2599 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2599 of 2009 Date of decision: 2.3.2010 Mohinder Kaur and others ......Petitioner(s) Versus Punjab Wakf Board ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) LRs of defendant-Darshan Singh have filed the present revision petition challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.1.2009 passed by Sh. Sunil Kumar Arora, Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur exercising the power of Tribunal under the Punjab Wakf Act. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession on the averments that the suit property being “Takia” (dedicated to the religious purposes) vests in the plaintiff-Board. The defendant being a strong headed person forcibly and illegally came into possession of the property in dispute without the consent of the plaintiff and further raised construction over it for his personal use and occupation and the defendant being in illegal and unauthorised possession had no right to retain the possession of the property in dispute. He was repeatedly asked to admit the claim of the plaintiff-respondent but in vain. Hence, this suit. Upon notice, defendant-Darshan Singh (predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners) contested the suit. In the written statement, apart from raising preliminary objections, it was submitted that the property in dispute was not the ownership of the plaintiff-respondent. It was further averred that Amar Chand, father of the defendant, purchased the property CR No.2599 of 2009 2 in dispute from Tehsildar (Sales) Hoshiarpur through conveyance deed which was produced in a suit titled as Gurcharan Singh v. Amar Chand decided on 19.9.1983 by the Court of Sh. B.S. Teji, the then Additional senior Sub Judge, Garshankar. It was further averred that site plan relied upon by the plaintiff-respondent and the revenue entries were incorrect and the plaintiff was not entitled to the possession of the property in dispute which is separate from the property of Takia and both these properties were separated by a wall. All other averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property? OPP 2. Whether suit is within limitation? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act, and conduct? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Whether the site plan produced by the plaintiff is incorrect, if so its effect? OPD 7. Whether suit has been filed through competent person? OPP 8. Relief?” I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Ex.P-5 copy of Gazette Notification depicts that the property measuring 2 kanals 11 marlas comprising Khasra No.98 min has been declared to be the ownership of the plaintiff-Board. The aforesaid property CR No.2599 of 2009 3 has been designated as Takia i.e the property is to be used for the religious congregation of the Muslim community. The case of the petitioners is that Amar Chand, father of Darshan Singh had purchased the property from the Tehsildar (Sales), Hoshiarpur but except the oral testimony, there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the aforesaid fact. The reliance of the petitioners upon judgment dated 19.9.1983 Ex.D1 to prove his assertion is without any force. No doubt Ex.D-1 mentions that the conveyance deed was executed in favour of one Amar Chand son of Mansha Ram by the Tehsildar (Sales), Hoshiarpur but on the basis of the aforesaid simple observation and in the absence of any proof of conveyance deed in the instant case, the defendant cannot be considered to be owner of the property in dispute. Moreover, in the instant case to support his contention with regard to ownership of the property in dispute, the defendant has not furnished on record either a copy of the aforesaid conveyance deed or any explanation with regard to the non- availability of the said conveyance deed. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to produce any document in support of his case. In case the aforesaid conveyance deed was not in possession of the defendant, the same could have been proved by summoning record of the Tehsildar (Sales), Hoshiapur but the petitioners did not opt to prove the said conveyance deed. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact in favour of the respondent-Board with regard to the ownership of the property in dispute. There is nothing on record on the basis of which any fault can be found with the judgment of the Tribunal. Dismissed. March 2, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE CR No.2599 of 2009 4