Paul Kaur vs Punjab Wakf Board and Another

S.D. Anand, J.—The plaintiff-petitioner is in revision against the judgment and decree dated 1.5.2006, vide which a suit filed by her to obtain (a decree for )the possession of the land in issue, on the basis of title was dismissed.

The averment made by the plaintiff-petitioner was that she is owner of the property in suit, that she had been correctly recorded in the 1990-91 Jambandi as the owner of that property and that mutation No. 4558 qua the change of title of the land in the name of respondent Punjab Wakf Board is illegal, null and void and that the subsquent Jambandi entries reflecting the change of title are illegal.

The plea raised by the defendant-respondent-Board was that the suit was not maintainable in the present form and that the plaintiff-petitioner had no locus standi to file it. The further plea was that the plaintiff-petitioner is estopped by her own act and conduct, from filing the suit which also was averred to be bad for want of a notice u/s 89 of the Wakf Act. On merits, it was averred that it is the Punjab Wakf Board which is owner of the property in suit which it had given to respondent No. 2 on lease and the latter is in possession thereof, as a lessee, under the Board. The jamabandi entries for the period 1990-91 were averred to be illegal.

The trial proceeded on the following issues:

Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

Whether the suit is bad for non-service of notice u/s 89 of Wakf Act? OPD

Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of court fee? OPP

Relief.

The learned Tribunal recorded the findings adverse to the plaintiff-petitioner under issues No. 1, 2 and 6. Issues No. 3,4,5 and 7 were decided in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner against the defendants-respondents.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the 1990-91 Jambandi entries indicating the plaintiff-petitioner to be the owner of the property in suit are proof adequate enough to invalidate the impugned finding recorded by the learned Tribunal.

The learned Counsel is not in a position to invite the attention of this Court to any documentary material which may indicate the circumstances under which the plaintiff-petitioner acquired title of the property in suit. It is not a case of an averment qua acquisition of title by adverse possession. It is a pure and simple title suit wherein the averment made by the plaintiff-petitioner is that she is owner of the land in suit. She has, thus, to adduce proof convincing enough to indicate that she did acquire title of that property. The mere fact that her name came to be entered as owner in 1990-91 Jambandi is not sufficient to uphold her claim of title. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner has not been able to invite the attention of this Court to any material which may indicate the source on the basis whereof aforementioned entry came to be made in the 1990-91 Jambandi.

It would be pertinent to notice here that PW-1 Kashmir Singh, the attorney of the plaintiff-petitioner, had conceded at the trial that there is no document of title in favour of the plaintiffpetitioner. It was in that view of things, that the Tribunal observed that "no document of title indicating ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property, has been produced or proved on record." It is not even the averment that the aforementioned finding of fact is factually incorrect. Apart therefrom, it is noticed in the remarks column of 1990-91 Jambandi that mutation Ex. P3 qua the title in favour of the Punjab Wakf Board had already been entered. In the jamabandi for the period to follow, i.e. Ex. P4, the name of the defendant No. 1- respondent No. 1 had been recorded as owner of that property and defendant No. 2-respondent No. 2 stands entered therein Gairmourusi.

In the light thereof, this Court has no hesitation in affirming the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal under issues No. l and 2.

The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No. 6 also deserve to be affirmed for the simple reason that, as per provisions of Section 89 of the Wakf Act, 1995, a statutory two months notice has to be compulsively served upon the Punjab Wakf Board before a suit against it comes to be filed. That provision is not indicated tohave been complied with by the plaintiff-petitioner. That finding is also affirmed.

The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed.