R.S.A. No. 1308 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1308 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.3.2009 Punjab Wakf Board ....Appellant Versus Jai Bhagwan & another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 21.1.2009 and the first Appellate Court dated 4.3.2009. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction by alleging that the property comprised in Khasra No.3605 Taraf Insar, Panipat abutting Railway Road, Panipat and a mosque bearing property No.1208, Ward No.3, Panipat, which is declared wakf property and marked as ABCDEF is situated therein since time immemorial and the mosque is shown in green in the site plan and the respondent is in possession of a shop shown in red in the site plan being part of the wakf property and on its back the portion R.S.A. No. 1308 of 2009 (O&M) -2- shown green is a Masjid on the first floor while the ground floor is the base of Masjid. It was alleged that the respondent had applied for the allotment of the portion beneath this Masjid to the appellant and the necessary allotment was offered by the appellant to the respondent but the respondent did not come forward to execute necessary rent deed and now he has started demolishing the shop comprised in khasra No.3605 Taraf Insar, Panipat. The respondents denied the averments made in the plaint and pleaded that respondent No.1 is owner in possession of the shop and has purchased the same from M/s Mathura Dass Bhatia and brothers and after the purchase they have constructed a new shop in place of the old shop and the plaintiff/appellant has no right in the property shown as red in the site plan. It was further pleaded that the back portion of the shop is the basement of the Masjid and the defendant/respondent applied for the lease and was ready to pay the lease money regarding that portion. It was pleaded that the respondent No.1 is raising construction only on the property No.1208, Ward No.3 purchased by him and the plaintiff/appellant has no right in the same. The following issues were struck during the course of trial :- 1. Whether the suit has been filed by a duly authorized person?OPP 2. Whether the property detailed in para No.2 of the plaint is a declared wakf property?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?OPP R.S.A. No. 1308 of 2009 (O&M) -3- 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?OPD 7. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of preliminary objection No.2 in the written statement of defendant No.2?OPD 8. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of notice u/s 80 CPC?OPD 9. Relief. Both the Courts below concluded that the appellant has failed to establish the existence of a mosque in khasra No. 3605 and dismissed the suit which has resulted in filing of the present regular second appeal. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and warrant interference. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. It is the plaintiff who had come to the Court alleging that there is a mosque existing on khasra no.3605 but no evidence was led by him to establish this fact. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant when confronted with the situation that they had made an attempt to produce jamabandies for the years 1938-39, R.S.A. No. 1308 of 2009 (O&M) -4- 1942-43, 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1950-51 by moving an application for additional evidence which was declined by the learned trial Court. It was pleaded that had this application been allowed the appellant would have been able to prove that the mosque was situated in khasra No.3605. I am afraid such a contention has to be repelled. The appellant had the right to challenge the order declining the prayer for additional evidence by way of a revision which was not done. He thereby deliberately invited the finality of the order. In this view of the matter, it does not lie in his mouth at this stage in regular second appeal to contend that some prejudice has been caused to him. There is no evidence on record to show that the pure findings of fact which have been returned by the Courts below can be termed to be perverse so as to warrant an interference in the appeal. No substantial question of law arises for the determination of this Court. Both the Courts have adopted valid reasoning and have granted the relief partially to him regarding the green portion of the area depicted in the site plan which was admitted to be the ownership of the appellant. This was done on the reasoning that the respondent No.1 himself had applied for the allotment of that area. But in so far as the red portion is concerned, there is no evidence to establish the case of the appellant. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 24.3.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss