FAQIR CHAND Vs. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD, AMBALA CANTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent Punjab Wakf Board filed a suit for possession of one room attached to mosque No. 6206/6829 known as Mosque Sayedan Chirmkaran, bearing Custodian and Survey No. 6207, Ward No. 3, Ambala City, alleging that the said property was Wakf Property and it was in unauthorised possession of the defendant-appellant who had illegally occupied it and was using it as his residence. In the written statement it was denied that the property in dispute was transferred to the Wakf Board. The defendant alleged that he was in occupation of this property since October, 1947 in his own right & as an owner & had also roofed it by spending Rs. 1,000/- in 1966. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

(2.) All the issues except issue no. 2 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Under issue No. 2 it was found that the suit property is not wakf property and, therefore, does not vest in the Punjab Wakf Board. Consequently the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The learned District Judge after discussing the evidence came to the conclusion that the room in occupation of the defendant is part of property No. 6207, which in turn is a mosque known as Masjid Sayedan Charamkran and a mosque is a wakf property; its non user after 1947 will not make any effect and will not change the character and nature of the property in dispute. Thus it was held that the room in dispute is in illegal and unauthorised occupation of the defendant and is a part of mosque known as Masjid Sayedan, Ambala City and since it bears No. 6207, it is a wakf property and vests in the Punjab Board. In view of findings the decree of the trial Court in dismissing the plaintiff's suit was set aside and the plaintiff's suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has come up in second appeal in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in the facts admitted and as alleged in the plaint in para 2 thereof, the property in dispute does not vest in the Punjab Wakf Board and, therefore, the suit as such cannot be declared in favour of the plaintiff. In support of his contention he strongly referred to Prithipal Singh v. Punjab Wakf Board, 1977 PunLJ 271, Khushi Ram etc. v. Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala,1981 CurLJ 401 and Sardar Singh v. Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt., 1982 CurLJ 78.