Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1040 (PNJ)

Baldev Raj v. Narinder Kumar

2004-09-13

V.M.JAIN

body2004
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. 2. The plaintiff had filed a suit or declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents, alleging therein that the suit property was a part of Imambada, which vested in the Punjab Wakf Board and the plaintiff was the tenant therein and that defendant Nos. 3 to 6 had no legal right to alienate the same in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The suit was contested by the defendants. After hearing both sides, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether the suit property was part of Imambada and vested in the Wakf Board and whether it was an evacuee property. It was further held that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were in joint possession of the shop in question. It was further held that the Punjab Wakf Board having not been impleaded as a party, the suit was bad for non-joining of necessary parties. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, upholding the findings of the Trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court. Notice of motion was issued. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. As referred to above, the plaintiff was claiming himself to be as tenant of the Punjab Wakf Board. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that the suit property vested in the Punjab Wakf Board being part of Imambada and that defendant Nos. 3 to 6 had no right to alienate the same in favor of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, since the suit property was not evacuee property. Admittedly, the Punjab Wakf Board under whom the plaintiff was claiming himself to be the tenant having not been impleaded as a party in the present suit, in my opinion, the Courts below, were perfectly justified in holding that the suit was bad on account of non-joining of necessary parties. Admittedly, the Punjab Wakf Board under whom the plaintiff was claiming himself to be the tenant having not been impleaded as a party in the present suit, in my opinion, the Courts below, were perfectly justified in holding that the suit was bad on account of non-joining of necessary parties. The plaintiff was not claiming any independent right in the suit property, except being a tenant. On the other hand, the plaintiff was claiming the suit property to be vesting in the Punjab Wakf Board. However, as referred to above, the Punjab Wakf Board had not been impleaded as a party. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the Courts below had rightly held the suit to be bad for non-joining of necessary parties. 5. So far as the question regarding the suit properly being evacuee property or otherwise is concerned, it is not disputed before me that there is anything on record to show in the present suit that any notification declaring the property as evacuee, had been issued, after taking appropriate proceedings under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property, Act, 1950. That being so, in my opinion, the Courts below could have held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit, in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in the case of the Dr. Rajendra Prakash Sharma v. Gyan Chandra and others, AIR 1980 SC 1206. In the said authority, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that Section 46 of the Administration Evacuee Property Act, 1950 will not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, where the Custodian had never declared the property as evacuee property after taking proceedings under Section 7 of the said Act. Thus, in my opinion, so far as the present suit is concerned, the finding of the Courts below that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit, on the question as to whether the suit property was evacuee property or not, is liable to be reversed. However, the finding of the Courts below that the suit was bad for non-joining of the Punjab Wakf Board as a party, in my opinion, has to be affirmed. However, the finding of the Courts below that the suit was bad for non-joining of the Punjab Wakf Board as a party, in my opinion, has to be affirmed. Once it is found that the suit is bad on account of non-joining of necessary parties, in my opinion, the Courts below were perfectly justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and no fault could be found with the same, especially when no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. In view of the above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.