R.L.ANAND,J - (1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiff-Tara Singh has filed the present appeal which has been directed against the judgement and decree dated 19.11.1999 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Patiala who confirmed the judgement dated 12.2.1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajpura, dismissing the suit of plaintiff for permanent injunction as prayed for. The case set up by the plaintiff before the trial Court was that the property in dispute bearing Khasra No. 1018 was the property of Punjab Wakf Board-defendant No. 3 in the year 1979 and since then he is in actual physical possession as a tenant under the Board and is paying rent to the Board against proper receipts and that the Municipal Committee- defendant No. 2 illegally wanted to disturb the possession. The suit was contested by the Committee-defendant No. 1 on the ground that the property in dispute is its property and it never vested with the Punjab Wakf Board and as such any lease, allegedly executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of the plaintiff, has no meaning absolutely. With above controversies raised by the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :- 1. Whether the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff by the Punjab Wakf Board, if so its effect ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property ? OPP 3. Whether the suit property is owned by M.C. Dera Bassi ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not legally maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party ? OPD3. 6. Whether notice under section 56 of Wakf Act was required to be served on defendant No. 3 before institution of the present suit ? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 8. Relief. There is no documentary evidence existing with the Municipality nor produced by the Municipal Committee to show that there is mention of this property in any record of the Municipal Committee vide judgement and decree of the trial Court referred to above. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree unsuccessful plaintiff filed an appeal before the first Appellate Court which was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Patiala on 19.11.1999 for the reasons given in paras 9 and 10 of the judgement, which read as under :- "Sh. H.R. Agnihotri, counsel for appellant has mainly argued that the disputed site belongs to Punjab Wakf Board and they leased out the same to the appellant vide lease deed Ex. PW. 5/B dated 10.10.1979, and since then he is in possession of the same. This contention of the 1d. counsel for the appellant has not merit. The revenue record of the disputed plot shows that it is owned by Municipal Committee Dera Bassi. Copy of jamabandi Ex. D.5 for the year 1992-93 shows that the Municipal Committee, Dera Bassi is recorded as owner of Khasra No. 1018(0-14) out of which (0-8) is Gair Mumkin Rasta and (0-6) is gair-mumkin makan. Admittedly, the dispute is with regard to the land measuring 0-8 bearing Khasra No. 1018 but the appellant has cleverly not mentioned the same either in the plaint or in the site plan Ex. P.1 filed by him at the time of the filing of the suit. He described the disputed plot as ARCD without giving its Khasra No. 1018, it was the duty of the plaintiff to have mentioned the same. On the other hand, the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove his possession over the disputed plot. No jamabandi or Kharsa girdawari has been produced to prove his possession. In this regard, the testimonies of Jethu Ram PW-2, Joginder Singh PW-3 and Jameel Khan PW-5 that the appellant has taken the disputed plot on lease from Punjab Wakf Board and is in possession of the same, cannot be given any effect when Punjab Wakf Board itself is not the owner in possession of the disputed plot then no explanation is forthcoming as to how they leased out the same in favour of the appellant. It in earlier jamabandi Ex. P.2 and P.3 for the years 1961-62 and 1971-72 the site in dispute has been recorded as Shamlatdeh hasab hissa rased Khewat in the possession of Makbooja Ahleislam. Punjab Wakf Board do not become its owner automatically. In this regard, the notification Ex. PW.5/A produced by the appellant showing the disputed site to be the property of the Punjab Wakf Board also has no effect, because no mutation has been sanctioned in favour of the Punjab. Wakf Board on the basis of the said notification. Rather jamabandi Ex. P.3 shows that the mutation No. 927 was sanctioned in favour of Municipal Committee Dera Bassi, to be owner of the suit land. If Punjab Wakf Board was owner of the disputed site, then no explanation is forthcoming as to why it remained silent, when the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Municipal Committee respondent and has been incorporated in the jamabandi for the year 1971-72. Thus it shows that the Punjab Wakf Board is not the owner of the disputed site and they have wrongly leased out the same in favour of the appellant. On this point rulings Durga Das v. Collector, 1996-PLJ-711 : 1997(2) RCR (Civil) 84 (SC) and Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh others, 1994(1) Civil Court Cases 212 : 1994(3) RRR 276 (SC) cited by the 1d. counsel for the appellant do not apply to the facts of the present case and are quite distinguishable. The instant case is not for declaration of the right of the parties, but the appellant has filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he is in possession of the disputed plot but failed to prove his possession over the same. In view of my above discussion, the appellant has failed to prove that he is in possession of the disputed site. Rather the disputed site is a passage used by the general public and owned by Municipal Committee, Dera Bassi. Therefore, the appellant has no right, title or interest in the disputed land and injunction cannot be issued in his favour. The 1d. trial Court has, therefore, appreciated the evidence on this point and as such I affirm the same in these issues." In this manner, the present Regular Second Appeal.
(2.) THE learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant invites my attention to the notification dated 29.5.1971 and submits that as per this notification Khasra No. 1018 was previously a grave-yand and had vested in the Punjab Wakf Board and as such the Punjab Wakf Board was the owner of the property and it leased out the plaintiff who is in possession of the property. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since 1979 the plaintiff is paying the rent regularly to the Punjab Wakf Board, which is through a receipt in favour of thee plaintiff in proof of the possession and since the plaintiff has established possession as tenant under the Board, therefore, his possession should not be disturbed by the Committee. I have considered the submissions raised by the learned Senior Advocate and I am of the considered opinion that these are devoid of any merit. It has been rightly observed by the Courts below while studying the history of the case that this property at no point of time was recorded in the revenue record as a grave-yard for the Muslim Kabristan. In this context the reference can be drawn to the jamabandi Exs. P2 and P3 for the year 1961-62 and 1971-72 where Kharsa No. 1018 has been shown as Shamlatdeh Hasab hissa rased Khewat which means that it was a passage being used by the people. There is no prima facie evidence of grave-yard in any record of the revenue. The notification on which reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Advocate also does not carry any water for the simple reason that on the basis of notification the Board never got any mutation in its favour, so much so there is no documentary evidence to show that the petitioner was in established possession of the site in question as his name does not figure in any khasra girdawari irrespective of the fact that the land is denoted by the Khasra numbers. The suit is for injunction. Since the plaintiff has not been able to prove and establish possession, therefore, he would not be entitled to any relief. The suit was rightly dismissed by the Court below. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;