SHANTI DEVI Vs. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Punjab Wakf Board filed a suit against one Het Ram and two others defendants for declaration that the suit property consisting of one storeyed house forming part of house No. 1052/644 Multani Chowk, Hisar, the property being a part of Khanga/grave yard - Salami Shah is owned by the board and decree already passed in favour of Het Ram was a nullity. According to the plaintiff, Gobind Ram was the tenant in the abovesaid building under the plaintiff-Board since 19. 1. 1950. Civil Court had passed a decree in Civil Suit No. 265 of 1978 titled Het Ram v. Gobind Ram, in favour of Het Ram. Said decree is alleged to be null and void, being against the principles of natural justice and not binding on the Board as the Board was not party to the said suit. Other relief for injunction from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff was also sought. In the previous suit, Het Ram had prayed that he had purchased the property from defendant No. 3 Gobind Ram, while other property was leased to him by the Punjab Wakf Board. The plaintiff-Board prayed that the said decree be set aside on the ground that the Board had acquired knowledge of the previous decree in favour of Het Ram very recently and also prayed for other relief as stated above.

(2.) DEFENDANTS No. 1 and 2 filed written statement. Defendant No. 1 in the suit averred that he had purchased the property from the Municipal Committee, Hisar vide sale letter No. 355-g dated 6. 2. 1976 for Rs. 242/ -. According to him, defendant No. 3 had forcibly occupied the property and he had filed Suit No. 265 of 1978 which was decreed by Sub Judge II Class, Hisar on 2. 9. 1984 and the appeal against the said decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide judgment dated 1. 5. 1985. Gobind Ram, defendant No. 3 in the suit then filed an appeal in the High Court, which was also dismissed. As such, the decree in favour of Het Ram was upheld upto the Supreme Court.

(3.) THE parties led evidence. The learned trial court decided issues No. 1 to 7 and 9 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. While issue No. 8 relating to institution of the suit by competent authority was decided against the board. The trial court held that it was the Secretary of the Punjab Wakf Board who could file such suit or could give permission thereof. As neither such permission was placed on record nor the suit had been instituted by the Secretary of the board, this issue was decided against the plaintiff Board. As a result of above finding on issue No. 8 the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-Board vide judgment and decree dated 13-1-1992. 5. Aggrieved from the above decision of the trial Court, Het Ram preferred an appeal, and the board also preferred an appeal. Both these appeals were disposed of vide common judgment dated 22. 11. 1995 by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar. Learned Addl. District Judge, Hisar on appreciation of evidence adduced before the trial Court, except issues No. 7 and 9, decided all issues against the Punjab Wakf Board. It was held that the suit was not properly instituted by competent person and as such, in addition to the findings on merits of the case, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be rejected. The learned Ist Appellate Court concluded as under;" In view of my finding on above issues, appeal No. 45 of 1992 filed by Punjab Wakf Board against Het Ram and others stands dismissed with costs whereas the appeal No. 46 of 1992 filed by Het Ram against Punjab Walk Board and others stands accepted with costs. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.