In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must establish their own title independently; they cannot succeed based on the weakness of the defendant's case, and a registered sale deed is insufficient if the vendor's title is not proven.

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

C A V Judgment

1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant/plaintiff is challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 09/04/2015 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 157 A/2014 (Shivnarayan v. Chief Executive Officers & Others) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 08/09/2014 passed by the learned III Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur C.G. in Civil Suit No. 29A/2011 (Shivnarayan v. Chief Executive Officers & Others) whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

3. The instant Second appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law?

“Whether the learned Courts were justified in law in holding that the land in dispute was not in the title and ownership of Abdul Wahid Khan, the vendor of land in dispute, having held that the disputed property is not proved to be part of waqf property?”

4.

(a) Facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his title over the suit property bearing Khasra No. 111, admeasuring 560 sq.ft., for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and from disbursing the compensation amount to any person other than the plaintiff, and for a direction to defendants No. 3 and 4 to pay the compensation arising out of the acquisition of a portion of the suit land to him. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property on 25/02/1992 from Abdul Wahid Khan by way of a registered sale deed and has since been in peaceful possession thereof. A portion of the suit land, measuring 0.01, ¼ acre, was sought to be acquired by defendant No. 3 for construction of a public access road, and intimation to that effect was given to the plaintiff. Upon approaching the office of defendant No. 3 on 30/03/2008 to claim compensation for the acquired land, the plaintiff came to know that a decision had been taken to disburse the compensation amount in favour of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 was claiming ownership over a part of the suit property on the ground that the land had allegedly been dedicated to the Waqf Board by late Abdul Rahman Khan through a Waqf deed dated 19/09/1932. The plaintiff clarified that the Waqf property of defendants No. 1 and 2, known as Lal Aath Kholi, measuring 87 × 30 sq.ft., is distinct from the suit land. Since defendants No. 3 and 4 were inclined to release the compensation in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, the plaintiff issued a registered notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but no action was taken thereon. Hence, the present suit was filed.

(b) Defendant No. 2 contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the plaint allegations and contending that the registered sale deed dated 25/02/1992 executed by Abdul Wahid Khan in favour of the plaintiff is void and inoperative, as he had no authority to alienate the property. It was pleaded that, in view of the Waqf deed dated 19/09/1932 executed by late Abdul Rahman Khan, neither the Waqf nor the