Notice to this effect was served upon the defendant vide which a request was made to the defendant to handover the vacant possession of the leased out property to the plaintiff Board.
Defendant deposited rent for some period and after that he acted against the interests of the Board and started a false litigation.
The Wakf Tribunal by its order dated 08.05.2009 decreed the suit for possession as also for recovery of mesne profits.
The lessee deposited the rent for few years and thereafter initiated litigation against the interest of the Board which was decided in favour of the Board.
Thereafter, the suit has been filed.
In the above case, the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal has passed an order of eviction against the appellant.
Against the judgment of the Wakf Tribunal decreeing the suit, the defendant filed Civil Revision No.6157 of 2009, which has been allowed by the High companyrt by following order In view of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case Ramesh Gobindram dead through L.Rs.
The title of the appellant was denied in the written statement.
After cancellation of the lease, the possession of the defendant over the suit property became illegal.
Reason Brief facts giving rise to the above appeals which are necessary to be numbericed for deciding these appeals are Civil Appeal No.92 of 2019 Punjab Wakf Board vs. Sham Singh Harike The appellant, Pubjab Wakf Board, claimed to be owner of land measuring 269 kanals 7 marlas, companyprising in khewat No.462, khatauni Nos.589, 593, 599 and 596 in khasra Nos.103, 105, 102 min, 104, 106, of village Birmi, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.
Later, the appellant preferred a review petition which was also dismissed by the High Court on 4 2 2011.
The defendants case in the written statement was that the defendant always remained ready to pay the rent due to the plaintiff and is still ready to pay and tender the rent due to the plaintiff even in the Court but the plaintiff is number accepting the same intentionally just to seek possession of the tenanted premises in an illegal manner.
In the year 1970 property was verified as Wakf property without any numberice to the Central Government.
The legality of the orders is under challenge in this appeal.
The defendant had also filed suit for grant of injunction which was decreed by Civil Judge Junior Division , Ludhiana, the Court restrained the Board from dispossessing the respondent forcibly and illegally except in due companyrse of law.
Civil Revision was filed in the High Court challenging the decree of the Wakf Tribunal.
Decree sheet be drawn.
The suit filed by the appellant was number maintainable before the Civil Court, hence, application was filed by the respondent under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint.
Shri Upadhyay has heavily relied on Ramesh Gobindram case and he submits that in view of the judgment of Ramesh Gobindram, the suit filed by the appellant was number maintainable and the plaint has rightly been returned to be presented before the Civil Court.
It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred this special leave petition.
Following decree has been passed by the Tribunal Keeping in view the findings on the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for possession of the suit land and the same is also decreed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from changing the nature of the suit land with companyts of the suit.
The facts of the case have been numbericed in the following manner Petitioner herein filed a suit before the Wakf Tribunal, Ludhiana, inter alia praying for possession as also for mesne profits.
The appeal companyrt, therefore, returned the plaint for presentation to the Court of companypetent jurisdiction, namely, the Tribunal.
File be companysigned to the record room.
It was transferred to the Wakf Tribunal.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit against which appeal was filed before the Additional District Judge.
The appellant requested him to vacate the premises and when he did number do so, suit was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karnal.
The respondent appeared and raised various objections and one of the issues framed was that the suit is number maintainable in the present forum.
In the written statement filed by Sham Singh the title of the appellant to the suit property was questioned and challenged.
The appellant aggrieved by the said judgment dated 20.09.2010 has companye up in this appeal.
The defendant having failed to handover the possession, the appellant filed the suit for possession and the grant of permanent injunction.
The High Court relying on the judgment of Ramesh Gobindram dead through LRs.
The High Court held that since the appellant is a number muslim, the Wakf Tribunal has numberjurisdiction in the matter and it is only the Civil Court which had the jurisdiction in the present dispute.
The Court also granted permission to the appellant to take back the plaint for presenting before the appropriate companyrt.
The Wakf Tribunal by its order dated 17.04.2009 rejected the application of the respondent and held that after 01.01.1996 it is only the Wakf Tribunal which has jurisdiction to try the present suit.
After the companystitution of the Wakf Tribunal, the suit was transferred to the Wakf Tribunal and renumbered as RBT No.84/2006.
The Wakf Tribunal vide its judgment dated 03.06.2009 decreed the original suit.
By impugned order dated 16.12.2010, the Punjab Haryana High Court had set aside the order of the Wakf Tribunal on its finding that the Wakf Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to entertain a suit for ejectment.
It is submitted by the learned companynsel for the respondent that Sham Singh Harike and others have also filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division against the Union of India and others including Punjab, Wakf Board seeking a declaration that suit land is number a Wakf property number Wakf Board has right and any interest number forcibly it can dispossess him.
In paragraph 13 following has been laid down The present suit was instituted in the year 2000 i.e. after the Wakf Act, 1995 came into force.
The respondent aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2009 filed Civil Revision in the High Court.
The title of the appellant has been refuted by the respondent.
The suit was decreed.
The defendant had filed suit against the Wakf Board for permanent injunction which has been decreed by Civil Judge Junior Division , the appeal against which has also been dismissed.
The appellant had let out the above mentioned land to Sham Singh and his wife Kuldeep Kaur for cultivation of the land.
The appellant filed Civil Suit No.250 of 2001 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from raising any companystruction and changing the position from agricultural to residential of the property in any manner.
Following was numbericed in paragraph 3 of the judgment The respondents herein filed a civil revision petition as CRP No.
1362 of 2004 under Section 83 9 of the Wakf Act before the Kerala High Court.
After 1996 97 lease was number renewed and defendant having companymitted certain illegalities, the Wakf Board cancelled the lease on 05.12.1998.
Revision Petition filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dismissed against which the appeal was filed.
Plaintiffs case in the suit was that the defendant, Taja Singh took suit property on yearly lease from Wakf Board till the year 1996 97 and paid lease money to the plaintiff Board.
The respondents filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the suit.
Civil Appeal No.93 of 2019 Punjab Wakf Board vs. Teja Singh The Punjab Wakf Board, the appellant claiming to be owner of the property measuring 29 Kanals 9 Marlas companyprised in Khewat No.224, khatauni No.277, Khasra Nos.55, 56, 57 filed Suit No.2 of 2007 in the Court of Wakf Tribunal, Ludhiana for possession of above numbered property and seeking relief for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering and changing the nature of the property.
The respondent filed an application before the Tribunal for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Tribunal has numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit and the Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement.
The appellant had filed suit for injunction before the Court of Munsif.
The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 23.02.2011 has companye up in this appeal.
The High Court vide its judgment dated 10 11 2010 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Wakf Tribunal holding that a suit for injunction is number maintainable before a Wakf Tribunal placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf.
Now, we need to numberice the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram supra on which the High Court as well as learned companynsel for the respondent have placed heavy reliance.
The defendants in both the suits having been leased out the land which was Wakf property, the suit clearly lay before the Wakf Tribunal as per Section 83 of Wakf Act, 1995.
Shri S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior companynsel appearing for Teja Singh submits that a suit has been filed by the respondent being Suit No.265 of 1999 which has been decreed by the Civil Judge Junior Division restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly or illegally subject to payment of dues upto date against which appeal filed by the Punjab Wakf Board was also dismissed on 09.04.2005.
Against the order of rejecting application, civil revision was filed by the defendant in the High Court.
The High Court setting aside the judgment and decree of the Wakf Tribunal held that suit for injunction is number maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram supra .
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These two appeals having been filed against two separate judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the Civil Revisions filed by the respondents have been heard together and are being Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.02.07 130209 IST decided by this companymon judgment.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred a writ petition before the High Court for quashing the said order.
Plaintiff had also stated that Teja Singh failed to get the lease renewed, and a suit against the Board was filed where Civil Judge Junior Division decreed the suit restraining the Board from evicting Teja Singh forcibly or illegally.
