JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant Dalwinder Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short, the Act) assailing judgment and decree dated 4.1.2007 passed by Wakf Tribunal, Amritsar thereby decreeing suit filed by respondent-plaintiff Punjab Wakf Board for possession of 59 sq. yards land in suit. 2. The plaintiff alleged that it is owner of the suit land which is attached to Mosque. Present defendant had filed a suit in the year 1994 against the present plaintiff and one Gurbachan Singh for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 18.7.2000 restraining the defendants of that suit from interfering in possession of the plaintiff of that suit over suit land measuring 59 sq. yards (also present suit land) except in due course of law. In the present case, the plaintiff has alleged that the petitioner (defendant) is in un-authorized and illegal possession of the suit property. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed possession of the suit property. 3. The defendant resisted the suit and controverted plaint averments. It was denied that the plaintiff is owner of the suit property or that the suit property is attached to any Mosque. The defendant alleged that the suit property is used as passage to Gurudwara Premi Jatha and for parking of vehicles of the devotees of the Gurudwara which also holds chhabeel in it at the time of religious meetings. The defendant is Granthi of the said Gurudwara. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Wakf Tribunal has decreed suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed this revision petition. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that even as per notification produced by plaintiff-respondent, Gurudwara is in possession of the suit property and therefore, suit should have been filed against Gurudwara and not against the defendant-petitioner who is only Granthi of the Gurudwara. The contention, although apparently very attractive, is completely devoid of merit. Perusal of judgment Annexure P/2 passed in the suit which had been instituted by the present defendant-petitioner reveals that he claimed himself to be in possession of the suit property. Consequently, the suit has been rightly filed against the defendantpetitioner. The defendant-petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. The contention, although apparently very attractive, is completely devoid of merit. Perusal of judgment Annexure P/2 passed in the suit which had been instituted by the present defendant-petitioner reveals that he claimed himself to be in possession of the suit property. Consequently, the suit has been rightly filed against the defendantpetitioner. The defendant-petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. In the previous suit, he himself claimed to be in possession of the suit property. Therefore, now it does not lie in his mouth to contend that Gurudwara is in possession of the suit property or that the suit should have been filed against the Gurudwara. 7. Counsel for the petitioner also raised some dispute regarding identity of the suit property. However, it is apparent from the judgment Annexure P/2 that suit property of the present suit is the same regarding which the previous suit instituted by present defendant-petitioner was decreed. The said judgment refers to not only area of the suit property but also property no. 6189/XVI-20 which is also the number of the suit property of the present suit. Consequently, there is no dispute regarding the identity of the suit property. 8. It may be added that present defendant-petitioner in his previous suit himself also pleaded that his father and predecessor-in-interest had even executed lease deed of the suit land in favour of the Punjab Wakf Board i.e. respondent-plaintiff in the instant case. Consequently, the present defendant-petitioner is estopped from denying the ownership of the plaintiff-respondent in view of section 116 of the Evidence Act. The plaintiff-respondent is also proved to be owner of the suit property by notification proved by it. 9. Faced with the aforesaid situation, counsel for the petitioner relying on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram (deceased by LRs) v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, [2010(5) Law Herald (SC) 3697] : AIR 2010 SC 2897 contended that in case of suit filed by Wakf Board for possession on the basis of lease deed, Wakf Tribunal constituted under the Act has no jurisdiction to try the suit. However, this contention is also devoid of merit because in the instant case, suit has been filed on the basis of unauthorized and illegal possession of the defendant and not on the basis of lease. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned judgment of the Wakf Tribunal. However, this contention is also devoid of merit because in the instant case, suit has been filed on the basis of unauthorized and illegal possession of the defendant and not on the basis of lease. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned judgment of the Wakf Tribunal. The revision petition is devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------