- (1.) THE instant suit was filed by Punjab Wakf Board -Plaintiff No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') along with plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, namely, Sarwar and Peer Mohammed for possession in respect of the property in dispute claiming that the same is Wakf property being a graveyard used by the Mohammadans of Ganaur from times immemorial. It was claimed that the suit land is a Wakf property by dedication, user and reputation. It was further pleaded that the defendant illegally took in his possession land measuring 6 Kanals 10 Marlas and refused to vacate the same.
(2.) IN his written statement, the defendant pleaded that the suit land does not belong to the Board. It was further pleaded that the suit property has never been used as a graveyard. He stated that the suit land is in his possession for the last 50 years and he is in constructive possession of the same.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the suit property is a Wakf property and vests in the plaintiff for the purposes of management and control? OPP 2. Whether the suit has been filed by a duly authorized and competent person, if no to what effect? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is within time? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction, if not what is the correct valuation? OPD 7. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD 8. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 14.09.1984. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff -respondents filed an appeal before the first appellate Court. The appellant raised an additional plea at the appellate stage with regard to the suit filed by respondents No.2 and 3 being barred by principle of resjudicata. Thus, issue No.7 -A was framed as under: "Whether the suit is barred by the principle of resjudicata as against plaintiff Nos.2 and 3? OPD The appellant also led evidence to prove the aforesaid issue, as framed by the lower appellate Court, and placed on record the documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. These documents show that the Civil Suit titled as 'Ram Sarup v. Sarwar and Peer Mohammad' related to the suit property and the following issues were framed in the aforesaid Civil Suit: 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the land in suit vests in PWB? OPD The findings on the aforesaid issues were that the suit land did not vest in the Board and thus, the Civil Suit had become final qua respondents No.2 and 3. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the lower appellate Court, under issue No.7 -A, held that the suit was barred by the principle of resjudicata so far as plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are concerned. However, on issue No.1, after considering the evidence on record the lower appellate Court held that the suit land was a graveyard in possession of the Ahle Islam, and thus, was vested in the Board; and in view of the aforesaid findings the appeal was accepted and a decree for possession was passed in favour of the plaintiff -respondent No.1. However, the suit filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 was held to be dismissed.;