CIVIL REVISION NO.2585 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 05, 2008 Punjab Wakf Board, Amritsar .....Petitioner VERSUS Sandhooran Rani and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Arul Palli, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Punjab Wakf Board through its Estate Officer, Ram Bagh, Amritsar, has filed the present suit , seeking declaration to the effect that it is owner and in possession through defendant No.6 as its licensee over a property, description of which is given in the suit and which is situated at Mohalla Dhobian, Katra Bhai Sant Singh, Amritsar. A prayer for consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 5 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff is also made. It is pleaded that the suit property is a mosque and in the ownership of the petitioner-plaintiff and in possession of CIVIL REVISION NO.2585 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: Smt.Harbans Kaur, respondent No.6 (defendant No.6) as its licensee. It is stated that respondent Nos.1 to 5 have no right, title or interest in the suit property and they had filed one civil suit regarding their ownership by misrepresenting the facts. When respondent Nos.1 to 5 did not accede to the request of the petitioner-plaintiff, the present suit is filed. Respondent No.6, who is defendant No.6 in the suit, has admitted the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff, pleading that she is in possession as licensee of the petitioner-plaintiff. Respondent Nos.1 to 3, however, have raised a preliminary objection saying that the petitioner has no locus to file the present suit besides various other objections. It is also pleaded that earlier there was litigation titled Kaka Ram Vs. Leelo, which will bind the present parties. It is also pleaded that property in dispute was not the properly described as property No.1190/X-5 never had numbered 920/X-5 and, thus, was never a mosque. It is stated that property No.371/X has now been presently numbered as 1190/X-5. The plea raised by respondent No.6, he being licensee, is also denied and so too her possession. It is rather pointed out that this was an evacuee property which was sold to one Bhola Ram vide sale deed dated 7.5.1965 by Rehabilitation Department. Bhola Ram had sold this property to Ganga Ram through sale deed dated 26.5.1965. Ganga Ram died and, thus, his son Kaka Ram, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 to 5 became the owners of the suit property. Kaka Ram also died leaving the property to devolve upon respondent Nos.1 to 5. It is further disclosed that Kaka Ram had filed a civil suit qua the same property against respondent No.6, Harbans CIVIL REVISION NO.2585 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: Kaur. She is also named Leelo. This suit was decreed on 30.1.1995. Appeal filed against the same was also dismissed and, thus, this judgment has acquired finality. On the basis of these respective claims, the Tribunal framed various issues and parties have led evidence in support of their respective claims. The petitioner-plaintiff has basically relied upon the evidence given by Harbans Kaur, respondent No.6 and the notification, Ex.P3. Much credence can not be given to the version of Harbans Kaur as her right as a licensee was determined in a suit titled Kaka Singh Vs. Leelo decided on 30.1.1995. The stand as taken by the petitioner that property in possession of defendant Nos.2 to 5 is not the same was also considered and the Tribunal found after making reference to various documents and evidence produced on record that the said property in dispute is the same which was subject matter of dispute in a suit titled Kaka Singh Vs. Leelo. The Tribunal then went ahead to determine the aspect of ownership of the property and has made reference to the sale deeds in favour of Bhola Nath and the subsequent sale deed in favour of father of Kaka Ram. It is also noticed that the evidence which has been led by defendant Nos.1 to 5 is of impeccable character whereas the evidence led by the petitioner and respondent No.6 is inadequate to show their ownership and possession over the suit property. It is noticed that PW1, who came to depose in favour of the petitioner, could not tell the date, month or year, when the lease deed was executed in favour of Smt.Harbans Kaur (respondent No.6). No application could be shown which may have been filed by Harbans CIVIL REVISION NO.2585 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: Kaur for grant of lease of the suit property. The witnesses of the petitioner were not aware about the sale deed in favour of the predecessor of respondent Nos.1 to 5. In fact, in a previous suit between Kaka Ram and Harbans Kaur, one Patwari Karam Chand Joshi (DW3) had deposed that property No.371/X, Gali Dhobian, Katra Bhai, Sant Singh, Amritsar, never vested in the Punjab Wakf Board. His statement in the previous suit was exhibited as Exhibit DY. In fact, statement of Harbans Kaur, while appearing as DW in the previous suit, has also come on record where she had conceded that the property in dispute was never in her possession. Accordingly, it can not be said that respondent No.6, Harbans Kaur, is in possession of building/property No.1190/X. In the light of this evidence, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner-plaintiff has not been able to establish its ownership over the suit property. The suit filed by the Wakf Board has been rightly dismissed and would not call for any interference. Dismissed. May 05 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE