PUNJAB WAKF BOARD Vs. MAYA DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Punjab Wakf Board-defandant No.1 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995, assailing judgment and decree dated 09.01.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge as Wakf Tribunal, thereby decreeing the suit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 6/plaintiffs declaring that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property and restraining the defendants (petitioner and its rent controller-proforma respondent No.7) from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs on the suit property.

(2.) Plaintiffs alleged that the suit property was allotted to their predecessor Bawa Ditta Mal, vide conveyance deed dated 01.10.1955, who became owner in possession thereof. On his death in the year 1957-58, Puran Chand husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 inherited the suit property, being sole legal heir of Bawa Ditta Mal. On death of Puran Chand in the year 1989, the plaintiffs have inherited the suit property being his legal heirs and accordingly plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property. Some tenants of the suit property under some of the plaintiffs connived with the petitioner-Wakf Board and illegally got the shops allotted alleging it to be Wakf property. The plaintiffs protested against the same by approaching defendant No.2-Rent Controller of the Wakf Board. Accordingly, allotment in the names of Sohan Lal and Surender Kumar was cancelled. However, signatures of the plaintiffs were obtained on some unwritten papers, which have been converted into illegal documents in favour of defendant No.1-Wakf Board. Plaintiffs are not bound by the same. The suit property was never declared as Wakf property.

(3.) Defendants contested the suit and controverted the averments made by the plaintiffs and pleaded that suit property is Wakf property and vested in defendant No.1. Conveyance deed in favour of Bawa Ditta Mal was denied and if proved, it was pleaded to be false, forged and fabricated document. It was denied that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property or that they had rented it out to different persons. It has been pleaded that plaintiffs had taken the suit property on rent from defendant No.1 vide allotment order dated 02.09.1993 and prior to it, Puran Chand predecessor of plaintiffs was tenant under defendant No.1. Various other pleas were also raised.