The civil Court's decision in determining whether a property is wakf property or not is final, and the notification issued by the Board under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act is binding, subject to the decision of the civil Court.

N.K.Sodhi, J.

1. This regular second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1979 passed by the District Judge, Jind reversing that of the Subordinate Judge, Narwana and dismissing the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff-appellant.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may first be noticed.

3. Punjab Wakf Board (for short the Board) the appellant herein filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute alleging that the land was owned by Masjid Muslman Kheri Sher Khan and was under the management of the Board and that it was being leased out by the Board from time to time. It was further alleged that the Board had leased out the land to one Ishwar up to 30.6.1975 on yearly basis and that the lease of the said Ishwar who is the son of Amar Singh defendant-respondent was terminated by a notice dated 29.5.1976. According to the Board the land was then leased out to Ziaudin defendant No. 2 in the suit in the year 1976-77 on a annual rent of Rs. 900/- and that possession of the same had been delivered to him. It was pleaded that Amar Singh defendant No. 1 in connivance with his son Ishwar got khasra girdawari of the suit land changed in his name and on that basis he instituted a suit for prohibitory injunction against defendant No. 2 in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, and declined to deliver possession to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for possession by the Board.

4. The suit was contested by Amar Singh alone who admitted in the written statement that the land in dispute was owned by Masjid Muslman Kheri Sher Khan. He, however, contended that the Board had no concern whatsoever with the land in dispute and claimed that he had become owner of the suit land by adverse possession alleging that he had been in possession of the same for a period of 30/35 years openly and to the knowledge of the true owner. Some other objections had also been taken by him in the statement and pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues;

1. Whether the plaintiff-Board is the owner of the suit property? OPP

2. Whether Abdul Satar the Wakf Officer, Hissar Circle has the authority to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff-Board? OPP

3. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction? OPD

4. Whether the defendant No. 1 has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession? OPD

5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

6. Whether the plaint is not verified according to the provisions of law; if so its effect? OPD

7. Whether the suit land was leased to defendant No. 2 as alleged in the plaint, if so its effect? OPP

8. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

9. Relief. Issue No. 1 had not been properly framed and with the consent of the parties it was recast as under: 1. Whether Masjid Muslam Kheri Sher Khan is the owner of the suit land, if so whether the same is managed by Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt ? O.P.P.

The trial Court decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Issues Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 8 were not pressed during the course of arguments and were, therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff whereas issue No. 7 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, Amar Singh respondent filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge which was allowed on 19.9.1979. The correctness of the findings under issue No. 1 alone was challenged in appeal and the lower appellate Court reversed those findings and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence this second appeal by the Board.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that appeal deserves to succeed and that the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained. It is common case of the parties that the land in dispute is owned by Masjid Muslman Kheri Sher Khan. As already observed Amar