Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.: (Oral) - Plaintiff Abdul Gafoor is in second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.1988 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur whereby appeal filed by defendants No.1 and 2 against the judgment and decree dated 20.03.1987 passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Gurdaspur was accepted.

2. Plaintiff filed suit for possession of land measuring 12 Kanals out of 29 Kanals 10 Marlas on the basis of lessee/tenancy under the Punjab Wakf Board- defendant No.3. Plaintiff alleged that land in question was owned by Punjab Wakf Board and tenancy was created in his favour in respect of 29 Kanals 10 Marlas of land including the suit land. Defendants took forcible possession of the land despite knowing the fact that plaintiff was tenant over the land under Wakf Board since 1970- 1971 and was paying rent regularly.

3. Suit was contested by the defendants on all counts including ground of maintainability of suit, locus standi and nonjoinder of necessary parties and jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

[1]. Whether the land in dispute is owned by Punjab Wakf Board? OPP.

[2]. Whether the plaintiff is lessee of the Punjab Wakf Board? OPP.

[3]. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD2.

[4]. Whether Gram Panchayat Muradpur village is owner of the suit land? OPD2.

[5]. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his previous acts and conducts? OPD2.

[6]. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD2.

[7]. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD2.

[8]. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP.

[9]. Whether the suit land is shamlat deh and defendant no.1 is in cultivating possession of the same since partition of the country? If so its effect? OPD1.

[10]. Whether defendant no.1 has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession? OPD1.

[11]. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit land? OPP.

[12]. Relief.

5. Both the parties led evidence and thereafter, trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 20.03.1987.

6. Defendants feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court. On due consideration of evidence, the lower Appellate Court accepted the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 17.10.1988 and that is, how, the present appeal came to be filed.

7. Though no substantial question of law has been framed in the appeal, yet learned counsel for the appellant has argued that whether the property fully depicted in the revenue record as Makbooza Ahle Islam supplemented by issuance of notification can be termed to be Wakf property even if user and dedication are not proved by any evidence?

8. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides with reference to record.

9. The vital question that arises in the present appeal is:- Whether suit land is a Wakf property or not?

10. Since the plaintiff claims possession of the suit land being lessee under the Punjab Wakf Board, therefore, relief can only be granted to the plaintiff on his establishing that the suit property vests in Punjab Wakf Board. The title in favour of Punjab Wakf Board is sine qua non for the plaintiff to establish that he was inducted as lessee by the Punjab Wakf Board and is entitled to the possession of land from the defendants. In the revenue record viz Jamabandi for the year 1979-1980 (Ex.D1), Gram Panchayat is recorded to be the owner of the entire land measuring 29 Kanals 10 Marlas. In Column No.8 of the jamabandi, Gair Mumkin Kabristan has been shown in respect of 12 Kanals 15 Marlas of land and the remaining land i.e. 16 Kanals 15 Marlas has been shown to be Barani Awal. The land shown as Gair Mumkin Kabristan further recited the possession of Makbooza Ahle Islam.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the ownership of t