BALDEV RAJ Vs. NARINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) THE plaintiff had filed a suit or declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents, alleging therein that the suit property was a part of Imambada, which vested in the Punjab Wakf Board and the plaintiff was the tenant therein and that defendant Nos. 3 to 6 had no legal right to alienate the same in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The suit was contested by the defendants. After hearing both sides, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether the suit property was part of Imambada and vested in the Wakf Board and whether it was an evacuee property. It was further held that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were in joint possession of the shop in question. It was further held that the Punjab Wakf Board having not been impleaded as a party, the suit was bad for non-joining of necessary parties. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, upholding the findings of the Trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court. Notice of motion was issued.

(3.) AS referred to above, the plaintiff was claiming himself to be as tenant of the Punjab Wakf Board. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that the suit property vested in the Punjab Wakf Board being part of Imambada and that defendant Nos. 3 to 6 had no right to alienate the same in favor of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, since the suit property was not evacuee property. Admittedly, the Punjab Wakf Board under whom the plaintiff was claiming himself to be the tenant having not been impleaded as a party in the present suit, in my opinion, the Courts below, were perfectly justified in holding that the suit was bad on account of non-joining of necessary parties. The plaintiff was not claiming any independent right in the suit property, except being a tenant. On the other hand, the plaintiff was claiming the suit property to be vesting in the Punjab Wakf Board. However, as referred to above, the Punjab Wakf Board had not been impleaded as a party. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the Courts below had rightly held the suit to be bad for non-joining of necessary parties.