In a second appeal regarding a suit for injunction over a graveyard and mosques, this Court dismissed the appeal. The lower courts denied the injunction due to non-impleadment of the Punjab Wakf Board, the essential party with management rights.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.1592 of 2016 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1592 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.11.12.2018
Mohammad Bashiruden
......Appellant
Vs
Surjit Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the appellant.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in seeking injunction against the defendants, their agents, employees, servants, attorneys and associates etc. from interfering or causing to interfere in the use of gair mumkin kabristan (grave yard), mosques and majar of Peer.
It was alleged that the plaintiff belonging to Muslim community had been maintaining the mosque and kabristan , which was recorded in the revenue record and therefore, had religious sentiments. The defendants wanted to change the nature of suit properties from religious to commercial and extended threats. FIR bearing No.58 dated 02.04.2004 under Sections 307, 382, 336, 427, 447, 148, 149, 120B IPC was also registered against some of the defendants. Defendants by using influence with the local police got cancelled the criminal case.
Defendant No.1 to 6 and 10 contested the suit by raising objections of maintainability on account of misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties. On merit, denied that it was gair
PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.01.07 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
RSA No.1592 of 2016 (O&M)
mumkin kabristan or masjid whereas the dargah/majar was managed by Madan Lal son of Harbans Lal, being the owner of the adjoining majar . Mosque No.1 and 2 were ownership of Punjab Wakf Board and therefore, there was no kabristan . It was stated that Punjab Wakf Board in the year 1988-89 had given the same on lease to Bupinder Singh son of Kartar Singh and Teja Singh son of Bawa Singh.
Plaintiffs examined as many as ten witnesses where as the defendants examined four.
On the preponderance of evidence, trial Court dismissed the suit, which has been partly allowed in appeal by the lower Appellate court.
Mr. Liaqat Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that revenue record showed reflection of kabristan . Non impleadment of Punjab Wakf Board cannot be fatal for adjudication of the lis as vide notification dated 19.09.1970, it was clearly proved that land measuring 40 kanals 2 marlas was a gair mumkin kabristan and the management of the same was with Wakf Board. Jamabandies of the year 1966 and 1967 also reflected the existence of graveyard, therefore, there is abdication.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and appraised the paper book. Both the Courts below declined the injunction on the ground of non-impleadment of the Wakf Board, which was essential and necessary as party for adjudication of lis. Notification referred to above conferred management of the land to the Wakf Board. Management of the property under lis would have only been proved through their records but miserably failed
PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.01.07 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No.1592 of 2016 (O&M)
-3-
to summon records from the Wakf Board. Had the records been summoned, there would have been some force to overcome the objection of non-impleadment.
In view of the aforementioned facts, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE December 11, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.01.07 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether non-impleadment of the Punjab Wakf Board, which confers management rights over the religious property, warrants interference with the dismissal of the suit.
Whether summoning records from the Wakf Board would have negated the objection of non-impleadment of a necessary party.
Mohammad Bashiruden
Surjit Singh
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
