Punjab Wakf Board vs Sham Singh Harike

The appellant had let out the above-mentioned land to Sham Singh and his wife Kuldeep Kaur for cultivation of the land. The lessee deposited the rent for few years and thereafter initiated litigation against the interest of the Board which was decided in favour of the Board. The appellant filed Civil Suit No.250 of 2001 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from raising any construction and changing the position from agricultural to residential of the property in any manner. The respondents filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the suit. The title of the 3 appellant was denied in the written statement. After the constitution of the Wakf Tribunal, the suit was transferred to the Wakf Tribunal and renumbered as RBT No.84/2006. The respondent filed an application before the Tribunal for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Wakf Tribunal by its order dated 17.04.2009 rejected the application of the respondent and held that after 01.01.1996 it is only the Wakf Tribunal which has jurisdiction to try the present suit.

3. The respondent aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2009 filed Civil Revision in the High Court. The High Court relying on the judgment of Ramesh Gobindram(dead) through LRs. vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726, allowed the Revision. The High Court held that since the appellant is a non- muslim, the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter and it is only the Civil Court which had the jurisdiction in the present dispute. The appellant 4 aggrieved by the said judgment dated 20.09.2010 has come up in this appeal.

5. The defendant had also filed suit for grant of injunction which was decreed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, the Court restrained the Board from dispossessing the respondent forcibly and illegally except in due course of law. The defendant having failed to handover the possession, the appellant filed the suit for possession and the grant of permanent injunction. The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. The defendant’s case in the written statement was that the defendant always remained ready to pay the rent due to the plaintiff and is still ready to pay and tender the rent due to the plaintiff even in the Court but the plaintiff is not accepting the same intentionally just to seek possession of the tenanted premises in an illegal manner. The defendant had filed suit against the Wakf Board for permanent injunction which has been decreed by Civil Judge 6 (Junior Division), the appeal against which has also been dismissed.

25. Coming to C.A.No.92 0f 2019 (Punjab Wakf Board vs. Sham Singh Harike), the case of the plaintiff in the suit was that the suit land was let out to Sham Singh with his wife, Kuldip Kaur in the year 1972 for cultivation. Defendant deposited rent for some period and after that he acted against the interests of the Board and started a false litigation. The property was let out to the defendant for agricultural purposes having no right to raise construction over the property. Details of different litigations initiated by the defendant were given in the plaint. Defendant initiated various proceedings for allotment of the land from the Revenue Authority which were all dismissed. The property has been mutated in the name of Wakf Board. In the written statement filed by the defendant, Sham Singh, the title of Wakf Board itself was disputed, and it was pleaded that the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Until and unless the suit property is declared to be that of 22 the plaintiff no suit is maintainable. Mutation in the name of the plaintiff does not confer any title. Thus, in both the suits filed by the appellant, the maintainability of the suit in the Wakf Tribunal was questioned. In the written statement filed by Sham Singh the title of the appellant to the suit property was questioned and challenged.

6. We are of the view that the dispute that arises for consideration in this case is with regard to the management and peaceful enjoyment of the mosque and madarsa and the assets which relate to wakf. Nature of the relief clearly shows that the Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide those disputes. We, therefore, find no error in the Wakf Tribunal entertaining OS No. 53 of 2003 filed by the appellant and the High Court has committed an error in holding otherwise. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the revision on merits. The appeals are disposed of as above, with no order as to costs.” 40

“22. The questions that fall for determination upon the appeal are two:

respect of which Issues 2 and 4 were framed, the first appellate court held that since the claim in the suit by the petitioner which is a Wakf Board, was on the basis that suit property was wakf property and since the respondent had denied it to be the wakf property, the question had arisen as to whether suit property is wakf property or not. Such a question, in the opinion of the learned Additional District Judge, could be decided only by the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act. The appeal court, therefore, returned the plaint to the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation to the court of competent jurisdiction, namely, the Tribunal. The result was that the decree passed by the trial court was set aside and the plaint returned.”

66. Civil Appeal No.92 of 2019 is, thus, fully covered by the judgment of this Court in Haryana Wakf 62 Board vs. Mahesh Kumar. The defendant having pleaded that suit property is not a Wakf property, the question has to be decided by the Tribunal. Thus, the High Court has committed error in allowing the revision petition. Thus, this appeal deserves to be allowed.

71. In view of the foregoing discussions, we allow Civil Appeal No.92 of 2019 (Punjab Wakf Board vs. Sham Singh Harike) and set aside the order of the High Court dated 20.09.2010. Civil Appeal No.93 of 2019 (Punjab Wakf Board vs. Teja Singh) is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.