PUNJAB WAKF BOARD AMBALA Vs. GRAM SABHA BASOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court who dismissed the second appeal preferred by the appellants.

(2.) Material facts to determine this Letters Patent Appeal may be stated. The appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter to be referred to as the defendants) for declaration that the'Pirsthan' or Dargah property known as Pirnigahia as detailed in the head note of the plaint is a place of worship and a Dargah, dedicated for pious and religious purposes recognized by the Muslim Law and that it fell within the `definition of' Wakf' as contained in the Wakf Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) and that on the enforcement of the Act, the property had vested in the plaintiff-Wakf Board. It was stated that the mutation sanctioned in favour of the defendant-Gram Panchayat, of the said property was wrong and illegal. It was further asserted that on the basis of the mutation, the defendants were interfering in the management of the property and were receiving offerings at the aforesaid place of worship. The plaintiffs also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the management of the place of worship and from receiving offerings. The defendants, however, opposed the suit and consequently issues were framed by the trial Court.

(3.) The only point which needs determination in this letters patent appeal is whether the suit property is Wakf property or not. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the property did not fall within the definition of' Wakf' as contained in S.3(1) of the Act. It was observed by the trial Court that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the suit property was a' Wakf' property and had vested in the Punjab Wakf Board. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal but the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. A second appeal was preferred to this Court. The learned single Judge, after considering the points raised on behalf of the plaintiffs, however, upheld the judgment of the Courts below.