RAM RATTAN Vs. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case has already been admitted without framing substantial questions of law. It is an irregular procedure. The following of the substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this second appeal, as formulated by the counsel for the appellant:-

(2.) The learned senior counsel for the appellant contends that the only document which the Wakf Board was relying on to show that it was the owner of the property was a gazette notification issued under Section 5 of the Wakf Act in the year 1970. He would refer to the position of law discussed by this Court and the High Court to say that notification issued under Section 5 cannot decide issue of title for 3 rd parties. The contention is that the Wakf Board itself does not have any proof for endowment of the property as wakf. The learned counsel also points out to an alleged misinterpretation of the pleading in so far as the appellate Court held that the plaintiff had admitted that the suit property was a kabristan which was a wakf. The learned senior counsel contends that the southern corner of the property alone was admitted to be kabristan and the remaining property as entered in the jamabandi of the year 1975-76 (Ex.P2) and 1980-81 (Ex.P3) only showed the property which was uncultivated and the plaintiff's name is also shown as having 1/32 share. According to him, the title of the plaintiff is proved by this entry and the gazette notification brought by the Wakf Board in the year 1970 will not exclude plaintiff's claim to title to the property.

(3.) The trial Court had concluded that the Wakf Board had granted a lease to the Municipal Committee for use of the property as a bus stand and for establishing a school in the year 1965 itself and the suit itself had been filed only in the year 1978, that was, more than 13 years after the lease. The appellate Court had therefore found that the suit was also barred by limitation. The appellate Court reversed the finding and held that in terms of change of law under the Limitation Act prescribing for rules of limitation under Articles 64 and 65, a suit for recovery of possession of title was required to be filed within 12 years from the time when the defendant's possession was shown to be adverse and since in this case, there was plea of adverse possession, the finding regarding the suit being barred by limitation was erroneous, the appellate Court, therefore, reversed the said finding. It however found that the plaintiff himself admitted the title of the Wakf Board, when he admitted the property as kabristan and hence, dismissed the suit.