The first appellate court's factual determinations are binding unless proven to be based on no evidence or are perverse; the wakf committee failed to substantiate its claims of ownership.

JUDGMENT :

SUDESH BANSAL, J.

1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, since the appellant in all these appeals, is common and the private respondents are independent allottees, being the owners of their respective plots; facts and grounds raised in the appeals are also substantially similar and further, the substantial questions of law are too one & same, hence, all these second appeals were earlier tagged and have been heard together, and shall stand decided by this common judgment.

2. Appellant- Muslim Wakf Committee was defendant and private respondents were plaintiffs before the trial Court and for the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as they were called before the trial Court.

3. Plaintiff’s suit for mandatory and permanent injunction was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.08.2015 by the Additional Civil Judge, Sawai Madhopur, whereagainst plaintiff preferred civil First Appeal. In the First Appeal, plaintiff’s suit has been decreed vide judgment dated 09.03.2022 by the Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur and a decree has been passed against the defendants and in favour of plaintiff, which is substantially identical in nature in all the civil suits, except change of plot numbers and name of allottees. For ready reference the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 461/1996 (282/1984): Keshav Das Vs. Muslim Wakf Board & Ors. in First Appeal No. 31/2015 by the Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur, is being reproduced hereunder:-

Challenging the judgments and decree dated 09.03.2022 passed by the First Appellate Court, instant Civil Second Appeals have been filed by and on behalf of Muslim Wakf Committee, Zila- Sawai Madhopur, invoking the jurisdiction of High Court under Section 100 of CPC.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, in his long drawn arguments, has emphasized on following three substantial questions of law, which have been suggested and referred by appellant in the memorandum of appeals and it has been argued by the counsel that these substantial questions of law do arise for consideration in these Civil Second Appeals:-

“(I) Whether the plaintiff should have challenged the Notification so issued with regard to disputed land under Wakf Act within a period of one year?

(II) Whether the plaintiff could bring the suit for perpetual injunction without making a prayer for possession as he was not in possession over the suit plot of land at the time of filing of the suit?

(III) Whether learned first appellate court wrongly reversed the findings of the learned trial on issue No.1?”

5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties, at length on the above proposed substantial questions of law and perused the record of both the Courts.

6. For the sake of convenience and brevity, facts, in brief, as pleaded in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 109/2022 and Arising out of Civil Suit No. 461/1996 (282/1984): Keshav Das Vs. Muslim Wakf Board & Ors., have been taken note of.

7.1 Plaintiff filed a civil suit, for seeking permanent and mandatory injunction way back on 15.09.1984, stating inter alia that plot in question was allotted to him by Gram Panchayat Alanpur, vide allotment letter dated 24.07.1963, which was later on registered on 19.07.1965. It was averred by plaintiff that he is absolute owner and possession holder of the plot in question and when on 05.09.1984, he came to know that few persons are trying to raise construction on a boundary wall over the plot, he filed the present civil suit on 15.09.1984, seeking to restrain the defendants from entering into unauthorized possession over the plot in question and to remove the kaccha-pakka construction o