GURNAM SINGH Vs. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit instituted before the Wakf Tribunal by the Wakf Board, it was claimed that there was a passage of 4' wide shown as ABCD on the western side of the school building, which was owned by the Wakf Board. The contention is defence was that the said passage was a part of separate property of the defendant and it was not a public passage as claimed by the defendant. The plaintiff had also claimed easementary right of air to the building EFGH. The Court had granted the relief of injunction to the plaintiff and since the suit had been instituted under the Wakf Act, the revision has been filed against the judgment by the defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff had placed no documentary evidence in support of the contention that the suit property belonged to it for use as a common passage but the wholesale reliance of the plaintiff was on a judgment rendered in a case instituted by the defendant against two persons Surmukh Singh and Sarabjit Singh before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Civil Suit No.12 of 1996 whereby the plaintiff had contended that he had left the passage of 4'x44' on the eastern side of his house for constructing a sewerage drain and that the above said two persons were trying to interfere in the possession of the property illegally. The defendants in that suit themselves had property in the immediate vicinity and their contention was that the 4' wide street had never belonged to the present defendant, who was the plaintiff in the previous suit. It was claimed by them that two other suits had been filed by him and both the suits were dismissed. The suit No.12 of 1996 was also dismissed and the judgment copy has been filed as Ex.P-5. The Court had made reference to the said judgment where the Court had elicited that the defendant herein admitted in the cross-examination that the sale deed made a reference to 4' wide street and even in the plan sanctioned by the Municipal Committee for construction of his own house, the 4' street had been shown as Gali. The Court observed that there was no document produced to show that the said lane belonged to him absolutely. It had, therefore, dismissed the suit No.12 of 1996. Presently, the Court, while decreeing the suit filed by the Wakf Board has made extensive reliance only on the judgment in Civil Suit No.12 of 1996.

(3.) In revision before this Court, the petitioner has made reliance on a demarcation report which had been drawn by the Kanungo where he had allegedly carried out demarcation with reference to property in Khasra No.25/11/1/1 and that there was no street or water course on the eastern side of this particular khasra number. The petitioner would further make a reliance on his own document produced and the copy of mutation that had been entered in the year 1977, which had described the property in Khasra No.25/1/4 of an extent of 6 marlas as the property belonging to the defendant. The jamabandi for the year 1986-87 had entered Khasra No.25/12/1/4 in the name of the defendant. There is also a further reliance on the judgment in apeal against Ex.P5 relied on by the Wakf Tribunal. The appeal appears to have been filed by the defendant in Civil Appeal No.79 of 1997 where there had been a compromise with reference to one of the parties namely Surmukh Singh and the appeal against Sarabjit Singh had been given up. The Court had observed that the judgment already passed dismissing the suit against Sarabjit Singh had become final and the compromise was binding only on Surmukh Singh. It is not possible for me to make any reliance on this document, for I do not have the benefit of compromise memo filed along with the appeal, although the decree says that the compromise is a part of the decree. Evidently, the defendant was attempting some sort of damage control from the admission made by him during trial.