PUNJAB WAKF BOARD Vs. NEEKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order, I propose to dispose of three connected Regular Second Appeals bearing Nos. 1998, 2000 and 2001 of 1983 as the points involved in all these appeals, as conceded by learned counsel representing the parties, are absolutely the same. The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention have, however, been extracted from Regular Second Appeal bearing No. 1998 of 1983.

(2.) THE Punjab Wakf Board, which is a corporate body, filed a suit for possession of plot, dimension whereof has been given in the plaint, situated in the area of Panipat against respondent, Neeko. The plot was shown by the letters ABCD in red colour in the site plan, attached with the plaint. Suit was filed through Faiz Ahmad Aukaf, Officer of the Board. Case of the Board is that the plot, subject-matter of dispute, comprised in Khasra Nos. 3421, 3422 and 3423, situated in the revenue estate of Panipat, was dedicated by some Muslims in very remote times for being used as a graveyard by all the Muslims and since then this plot has been used as a graveyard. Khasra Numbers, as referred to above, as per the averments made in the plaint, were shown in the revenue record as Gair Mumkin Kabristan. In the absence of the plaintiff, the defendant took possession of the plot, subject-matter of dispute, somewhere in November/December, 1971 and constructed boundary walls, knowing fully well that the plot in dispute was a part of graveyard. It is then pleaded that the Punjab Wakf Board duly constituted under the Central Wakf Act, 1954, is authorised to administer all public wakfs and properties belonging to it and to institute suits and to take other proceedings relating to recovery of wakfs' properties. Suit of the plaintiff was resisted on the preliminary and technical grounds. However, insofar as merits of the case are concerned, the defendant pleaded in the written statement filed on his behalf that he was in adverse possession of the plot in dispute since 1960. He also denied that the suit property was part of Khasra Nos. 3421, 3422 and 3423. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues :-

(3.) MR . Arun Palli, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently contends that even though it may be true that while leading evidence before learned trial Court, the plaintiff had not led any evidence to prove that the plot in dispute formed part of Khasra Nos. 3421, 3422 and 3423 but the site plan, Ex. P-1, depicts the site as forming part of Khasra Numbers, referred to above. However, no Local Commissioner was got appointed nor any demarcation report was placed on the records and the courts below have returned finding on Issue No. 2 against the plaintiff. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 was also filed for appointment of Local Commissioner but the same was dismissed even though by a separate order on the same date when appeal was dismissed, i.e., 17.5.1983. Relevant part of the order declining the prayer of the plaintiff for leading additional evidence by way of appointing Local Commissioner, reads thus:-