RSA No. 1686 of 2005 ( 1 ) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 27.02.2008. Punjab Wakf Board ,Ambala Cantt. .. Appellant Versus Gurudwara Mohalla Kharadian Chhachhrouli and others .. Respondents. Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate,with Mr. Parminder Singh,Advocate, for the appellant. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. This is plaintiff's Regular Second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for possession claiming that the property in question was a mosque and belongs to the Wakf Board. The suit was resisted by the defendants claiming that the suit property is a Gurudwara. The defendants also denied the claim of the plaintiff that the suit property was a mosque. The defendants also pleaded that the suit property was shown as a Gurudwara Mohalla Kharadian which bears MC No.3-76. It is also pleaded that even prior to 1947 the suit property was a Gurudwara and the same is being used as such by the devotees. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- RSA No. 1686 of 2005 ( 2 ) 1. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the suit in its own name and the same has legally been filed through an authorised person? OPP 2. Whether the suit property is Mosque or Masjid as alleged by the plaintiff and thus, has fallen under the control and management of plaintiff board? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief claimed? OPP 4. Whether the suit property is a Gurudwara Mohalla Kharadian, Chhachhrauli and is being used by all the devotees as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus- standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 7. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD RSA No. 1686 of 2005 ( 3 ) 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by its act and conduct? OPD 9. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 10. Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 11. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs under Section 35-A CPC? OPD 12. Relief. Issue No.2 is the main issue. Both the parties were permitted to lead evidence and they led documentary and oral evidence to prove their respective claims. The plaintiff placed reliance upon Exs.P-5 and P-6. Exhibit P-5 is the copy of the town planner register whereas Exhibit P-6 is the extract from town plan. Both the learned Courts below have carefully considered these documents and returned a finding that both these documents do not help the plaintiff. It has been held by the learned Courts below that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit property is comprised in Khasra No.599 and in the absence of this evidence, the entry in the town plan register cannot come to the help of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court has held that Ex.P-6 is a suspicious document. All other numbers have been mentioned in the red ink whereas one khasra number i.e. RSA No. 1686 of 2005 ( 4 ) Khasra No.599 has been mentioned with the blue ink which also seems to be over written on khasra No.602. Both the learned Courts below have, accordingly, held that there is no convincing evidence regarding the claim of the plaintiff that the suit property is a Mosque. The learned trial Court, thus, dismissed the suit and the learned Lower Appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Exhibits P-5 and P-6, do establish the claim of the plaintiff. This is not a fact as both the learned Courts below have discarded the aforesaid evidence after discussing the same. Learned counsel further argued that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, (Act No.42 of 1991), (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Section 4 of the Act is reproduced as under:- “4. Declaration as to the religious character of certain places of worship and bar of jurisdiction of Courts, etc.:- (1) It is hereby declared that the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day. (2) If on the commencement of this Act, any suit, appeal or other proceeding with RSA No. 1686 of 2005 ( 5 ) respect to the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship, existing on the 15th day of August, 1947, is pending before any Court, tribunal or other authority, the same shall abate, and no suit, appeal or other proceeding with respect to any such matter shall lie on or after such commencement in any Court, tribunal or other authority. Provided that if any suit, appeal or other proceeding instituted or filed on the ground that conversion has taken place in the religious character of any such place after the 15th day of August, 1947, is pending on the commencement of this Act, such suit, appeal or other proceeding shall not so abate and every such suit, appeal or other proceeding shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of sub- section (1). (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall apply to:- (a) any place of worship referred to in the said sub-section which is an ancient and RSA No. 1686 of 2005 ( 6 ) historical monument or an archaeological site or remains covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Site and Remains Act, 1958, or any other law for the time being in force; (b) any suit, appeal or other proceeding, with respect to any matter referred to in sub- section (2), finally decided, settled or disposed of by a Court, tribunal or other authority before the commencement of this Act; ( c) any dispute with respect to any such matter settled by the parties amongst themselves before such commencement; (d) any conversion of any such place effected before such commencement by acquiescence; (e) any conversion of any such place effected before such commencement which is not liable to be challenged in any Court, tribunal or other authority being barred by limitation under any law for the time being RSA No. 1686 of 2005 ( 7 ) in force.” From the bare reading of this section, it is evident that the crucial date for declaration is 15.08.1947. If a religious place of worship is found to be in existence on the aforementioned date, no suit will lie to change its character or for conversion of such a character. In the present case, there is no evidence to show that on 15.08.1947 the suit property was a Mosque. Rather evidence has come on record that before 1947 it was a Gurudwara. In the absence of such an evidence, the Civil Court's jurisdiction cannot be ousted. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 27.02.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO