PHOOL CHAND Vs. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two regular second appeals bearing No.1950 of 1991 and 899 of 1991. The former has been preferred at the instance of the Punjab Wakf Board against the dismissal of the civil suit bearing No.570 of 1985 titled as "Punjab Wakf Board Vs. Puran Chand" seeking permanent injunction and upheld by the lower Appellate Court whereas the latter also at the instance of one Phool Chand whereby the suit bearing No.1186 of 1986 titled as "Punjab Wakf Board Vs. Jiwan Ram and Phool Chand" has been decreed by the trial Court and appeal preferred against the same by the defendant-Phool Chand has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. In short, two suits in respect of the same property i.e. plot No.7287 were filed. The relevant facts are being taken from RSA No.899 of 1991.

(2.) The Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt instituted the suit for injunction restraining Jiwan Ram son of Ram Narain and Phool Chand son of Mina Ram from interfering into possession of plot bearing No.7287 situated at Mohalla Miya-ki-sarai, Narnaul, which was used as Masjid as shown in the site plan in red colour with other relief of challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.7.1984 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Narnual and sale deed bearing No.1833 dated 25.1.1985 to be illegal and void and not binding upon it. It was pleaded that the suit property bearing No.7287 as per the survey register and gazette notification dated 29.8.1970 was owned and possessed by Wakf Board. The other properties of the Wakf Board situated in Masjid was /is in possession of other tenants namely Budh Ram, Manohar Lal, Nanak and Daulat Ram. Earlier Puran son of Jodha wanted to dispossess the Wakf Board forcibly and illegally, resulting into filing of the suit for permanent injunction on 26.10.1985 and the Civil Court had injuncted the defendants and found therein that the suit property was being used by the plaintiff as owner in possession but the defendants wanted to interfere in the possession and by way of collusive decree and a forged sale deed dated 25.1.1985 was executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1.

(3.) Upon notice, defendant No.1 did not appear and proceeded ex parte whereas the defendant No.2 filed written statement and denied the actual possession of the plaintiff and as well as the correctness of the site plan was disputed. It was stated that the suit property was owned and possessed by defendant No.2 and his ownership and possession had been admitted by the plaintiff previously also. The sale deed was executed after contest and the civil court decree dated 19.7.1984 was perfectly legal and valid whereby the sale deed dated 25.1.1985 had been executed. The site plan of the property was sanctioned by Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul on the premise that defendant No.2 was the owner and prayed for dismissal of the suit.