Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the findings rendered by the Courts below on issue No.11 holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to eject the respondent-defendants being Gair Marusi on payment of rent was not maintainable.
(2.) Mr.Jai Bhagwan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-plaintiff submits that the suit for possession was filed against the respondent-defendant in respect of the property measuring 9 kanal 12 marlas comprising khasra No.249, situated at village Tung Pain Suburban, Batala Road, Amritsar as the same was dedicated to Muslims for worship. The said property was notified in the Government Gazette Notification dated 09.01.1971 as a wakf property and, therefore, the possession of the respondent being a trespasser and accordingly suit,with aforementioned relief was filed. However, the Courts below rendered the findings on the other issues holding the property to be Wakf property,non-suited the plaintiff on the ground that Civil Court in view of the provisions of Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (in short '1953 Act') had no jurisdiction. He submits that the judgment rendered by both the Courts below is against the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Superme Court in Bhanwar Lal and another v. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf and others, 2013 4 RCR(Civ) 758, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to ponder upon a question as to whether in view of the provisions of Section 6, 7 and 85 of the Rajasthan Wakf Act, 1995 which is perimateria to the Punjab Wakf Act, would Civil Court have a jurisdiction to seek the ejectment of the tenant and answer was in the "positive". In essence he submitted that the Supreme Court held that where the controversy involving the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act is concerned, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be barred. In fact it would be with the Tribunal, whereas in all other matters including the eviction, with the Civil Court. In support of his contention drawn the attention of this Court to findings rendered in para 19 as well as 23 of the judgment citedwhich reads as under:- "19. It would also be profitable to refer to that part of the judgment where the Court gave guidance and the need for a particular approach which is required to deal with such cases. In this behalf the Court specified the modalities as under: "11. Before we take up the core issue whether the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain and adjudicate upon disputes regarding eviction of (sic from) wakf property stands excluded under the Wakf Act, we may briefly outline the approach that the courts have to adopt while dealing with such questions. 12. The well-settled rule in this regard is that the civil courts have the jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those entertainment whereof is expressly or impliedly barred. The jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suits of civil nature is very expansive. Any statute which excludes such jurisdiction is, therefore, an exception to the general rule that all disputes shall be triable by a civil court. Any such exception cannot be readily inferred by the courts. The court would lean in favour of a construction that would uphold the retention of jurisdiction of the civil courts and shift the onus of proof to the party that asserts that the civil court's jurisdiction is ousted. 13. Even in cases where the statute accords finality to the orders passed by the Tribunals, the court will have to see whether the Tribunal has the power to grant the reliefs which the civil courts would normally grant in suits filed before them. If the answer is in the negative, exclusion of the civil court's jurisdiction would not be ordinarily inferred. In Rajasthan SRTC v. Bal Mukund Bairwa, a threeJudge Bench of this Court observed "There is a presumption that a civil court has jurisdiction. Ouster of civil court's jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred. A person taking a plea contra must establish the same. Even in a case where the jurisdiction of a civil court is sought to be barred under a statute, the civil court can exercise its jurisdiction in respect of some matters particularly when the statutory authority or tribunal acts without jurisdiction 23. The suit is for cancellation of sale deed, rent and for possession as well as rendition of accounts and for removal of trustees. However, pleading in the suit are not filed before us and, therefore, exact nature of relief claimed as well as averments made in the plaint or written statements are not known to us. We are making these remarks for the reason that some of the reliefs claimed in the suit appeared to be falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal whereas for other reliefs civil suit would be competent. Going by the ratio of Ramesh Gobind Ram , suit for possession and rent is to be tried by the civil court. However, suit pertaining to removal of trustees and rendition of accounts would fall within the domain of the Tribunal. In so far as relief of cancellation of sale deed is concerned this is to be tried by the civil court for the reason that it is not covered by Section 6 or 7 of the Act whereby any jurisdiction is conferred upon the Tribunal to decided such an issue. Moreover, relief of possession, which can be given by the civil court, depends upon the question as to whether the sale deed is valid or not. Thus, the issue of sale deed and possession and inextricably mixed with each other. We have made these observations to clarify the legal position. In so far as present case is concerned, since the suit was filed much before the Act came into force, going by the dicta laid down in Sardar Khan case, it is the civil court where the suit was filed will continue to have the jurisdiction over the issue and civil court would be competent to decide the same."
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Shiv Charan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2004 4 RCR(Civ) 543, wherein the provisions of Section 77(3)(d) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 came to be debated on and it was held that where a person seeks relief under Section 5 and 8 of the Act, the Civil Court would have the jurisdiction and not the Revenue Court and, therefore, the findings rendered by both the Courts blow that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit is only a preponderance of probability, fallacious and arbitrary and thus liable to be set aside.;