PUNJAB WAKF BOARD Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question raised in this appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for brevity, 'the Code') is as to when defendant-respondent No. 1, Reghbir Singh had acquired ownership right in respect of the suit property. Would it be when the auction was confirmed by the Rehabilitation Department in his favour or when the sale certificate was issued ? The plaintiff-Punjab Wakf Board has filed the instant appeal against the defendant-respondents under Section 100 of the Code by raising the argument that before the title could be transferred to defendant-respondent No. 1, the suit property came to be vested in it.

(2.) ONE Amir Ali was owner of the suit property who had rented the same to defendant-respondent No. 2 - Sansar Chand before the historical exodus of 1947. The aforementioned Amir Ali is said to have deserted the property and went away to Pakistan. The suit property came to be vested in the Central Government as an evacuee property. Defendant-respondent No. 1, Raghbir Singh purchased the suit property in an open auction held by the Rehabilitation Department under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for brevity, Rs.1954 Act') and the rules framed thereunder, namely, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (for brevity, Rs.1955 Rules'). Defendant-respondent No. 1 was a successful auction purchaser and the auction was confirmed in his favour on 10.9.1969 vide Ex. DW-8/2 which is a copy of the letter received by defendant-respondent No. 1 from a Competent Authority who confirmed the bid in his favour. Thereafter, he deposited the entire sale consideration on 29.9.1969 vide receipt Ex. DW-8/3 and the sale certificate was issued to him much later on 9.2.1975. The plaintiff-appellant filed Civil Suit No. 645 of 1982 on 8.10.1982 for permanent injunction against defendant-respondent No. 1 restraining him from interfering in its possession through Sansar Chand, defendant-respondent No. 2. It has been alleged that defendant-respondent No. 2 was inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff-appellant has also placed reliance on a suit filed by it against the State of Punjab and Union of India in the year 1971 being Civil Suit No. 20 of 1971. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Hoshiarpur on 11.9.1975 and the decree was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 18.4.1979. The aforementioned judgments of both the courts and have been exhibited as Ex. PY and Ex. PY/1 respectively. It is alleged that defendant- respondent No. 1 is neither the owner nor holding any right in the suit property and he is also bound by the judgment and decree Ex. PY and Ex. PY/1. In the alternative, it has been asserted that the suit property include shops which is a Wakf property being part of Masjid Samchey Khan and could not have been transferred to defendant-respondent No. 1 by the State of Punjab or Union of India.

(3.) DEFENDANT -respondent No. 2 has supported the case of the plaintiff- appellant by admitting all the averments made by the plaintiff-appellant.