HARI SHANKAR Vs. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is at the instance of the plaintiff, who filed a suit for injunction against the respondent -Punjab Wakf Board, claiming that he is in possession of the property and his possession could not be disturbed, otherwise in accordance with law. The Court found that his possession was not lawful and he is not entitled to injunction. Learned Senior Counsel argues that there are sufficient authorities (including the decision of the Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (Dead) by LRs Versus M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LRs : (2004) 1 SCC 769) for the proposition that 'settled possession' is to be protected and if the plaintiff is in possession, injunction ought to have been granted.

(2.) THERE is something more fundamental about the institution of the suit itself. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is invoked under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995 only in respect of a matter where adjudication is required whether the property belongs to the Wakf Board or not. If no issue arises before the Tribunal regarding the property being that of the Wakf or not, then jurisdiction of the Tribunal itself does not arise. A relief for injunction by a person claiming to be in possession cannot be laid before the Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the Wakf itself does not lie with it and the dismissal of injunction would not be interfered with, although for a different reason that there was no jurisdiction for the Tribunal to entertain the suit. The plaintiff would be entitled to any other relief which is available to him in a properly constituted suit before a civil court of ordinary jurisdiction, if at all he could identify a cause of action and makes any ground to maintain a suit against the Wakf Board, which asserts ownership over the property.