Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Singh & Another vs Punjab Wakf Board on 18 July, 2022
RSA-6990-2016 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-6990-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.07.2022
Ajit Singh and another
... Appellants
Vs.
Punjab Wakf Board
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate
for the appellants.
*******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in this appeal is for setting aside the judgment and decree
dated 18.04.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Amritsar, vide which
suit filed by the appellants praying for a decree of permanent injunction
regarding possession over the disputed property, as detailed in the plaint, was
dismissed as well as the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2015 passed by the
lower appellate Court, vide which appeal filed by the appellants, was also
dismissed.
Brief facts of the case, as noticed in judgment of the lower
appellate Court, are as under: -
"In brief, case of the plaintiffs is that they are in possession of
land bearing khasra No.4/20 (7-12), 28/13 (7-11), 14 (7-11), 15 (7-
1 of 5
11), 4/21 (8-0), totaling 37 kanals 15 marlas, situated in Village
Dharike, Tehsil and District Amritsar. Earlier, this land was leased
out to Dilbagh Singh, father of the plaintiffs, at the rate of Rs.925/-
per month. Dilbagh Singh used to pay lease amount against
receipts, to the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant').
Dilbagh Singh died in January, 1998. After his death, all his legal
heirs including plaintiffs inherited him and became lessee of the
suit property. Plaintiffs have been paying lease amount to the
defendant, after the death of Dilbagh Singh and are in possession
of the suit land. That defendant is now pressurizing the plaintiffs to
enhance lease amount, to get the land transferred in their name as
lessee. Furthermore, officials of defendant department are
claiming big amount for transfer of lease in the name of plaintiffs.
They are threatening to otherwise dispossess the plaintiffs from the
suit land forcibly. They were requested number of times not to do
so, but they are adamant. In case they succeed in their design,
plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss. It was prayed that a decree
for injunction be passed restraining the defendant to interfere in
peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and from
taking forcible possession thereof.
On notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement
contesting the suit. Preliminary objections regarding
maintainability of the suit, plaintiffs having no locus standi and
2 of 5
cause of action to file the suit, plaintiffs being estopped by their
act and conduct to file the suit and having suppressed material
facts, suit having been misdescribed, suit being barred under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and under Section 41 (H) of Specific Relief
Act and for want of service of notice under Section 89 of Wakf Act
were taken. It was further contended that defendant board is owner
of the suit land. Dilbagh Singh, father of the plaintiffs, took the suit
land on lease for a fixed period. He died and thereafter, plaintiffs
came in possession of the suit land. However, their possession was
unauthorized and illegal. They did not execute lease deed in
favour of the defendant board. Defendant board filed the suit for
possession of the suit land under Section 77 of Tenancy Act, by
way of ejectment of plaintiffs from the suit land, which was ex-
parte decreed vide order dated 27.03.2003. Plaintiffs moved an
application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was disposed of.
Thereafter, defendant board filed execution application and took
possession of the suit land on 17.04.2008 in due course of law.
Since then, defendant board is in actual physical possession of the
suit land and plaintiffs have no concern with the same. Question of
granting injunction to the plaintiffs, therefore, does not arise.
While replying on merits, aforementioned pleas were reiterated. It
was finally prayed that suit be dismissed."
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that both the Courts
3 of 5
below have not properly appreciated the statements made by plaintiffs'
witnesses with regard to possession over the disputed property. It is further
submitted that it is case set up by the plaintiffs that defendant-Punjab Wakf
Board leased out the suit land to their father i.e. Dilbagh Singh and after expiry
of the lease, they continued to be in possession by making payment of the lease
amount, therefore, the defendant has no right to interfere in their possession.
To the contrary, defendant-Punjab Wakf Board examined Estate
Officer, who appeared as DW1 and stated that Punjab Wakf Board is owner of
the disputed property, which was given on lease to father of the plaintiffs
namely Dilbagh Singh and after his death, plaintiffs became in illegal
possession of the same and suit is already filed by the defendant-Punjab Wakf
Board under Section 77 of Tenancy Act, in which an order of eviction was
passed against the plaintiffs on 27.03.2003 and possession was handed over to
the defendant-Punjab Wakf Board on 17.04.2008 by following due process of
law.
Both the Courts below recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have
failed to prove their possession over the suit property.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I find that it is a
simplicitor case filed on the basis of possession praying for a decree of
permanent injunction, in which both the Courts below have concurrently held
that possession was delivered to the defendant-Punjab Wakf Board in execution
of an order passed by the Court and the plaintiffs are not in possession of the
suit property.
4 of 5
No question of law, much less substantial question of law, is
involved in this appeal.
In view of the above, finding no illegality or infirmity in the
findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, present appeal is dismissed.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
18.07.2022 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
