Chet Ram & Ors. Vs. Punjab Wakf Board & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4260 of 1989
Petitioner: Chet Ram & Ors.
Respondent: Punjab Wakf Board & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4260 of 1989
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & SHIVARAJ V.PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 20, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Constitution
Article 136 – Interference – Dispute regarding property being Wakf property – Trial court’s finding that it was not wakf property, reversed by Distt. Judge – High Court in second appeal affirming the same. Held that no interference is called for. Appeal dismissed.
(Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. In a second appeal the High Court refused to interfere with the order made by the District Judge in appeal. That appeal arose out of a suit by which the suit filed by the Wakf Board for the possession of the land comprising of kila no.216/3 (New) (Old No. 699) claiming that it was a Muslim graveyard and was thus, Wakf property which was the property in dispute, had been dismissed. Learned District Judge on examination of the revenue records and on appraisal of oral evidence tendered before him, came to give a finding that the property in dispute was Wakf property. If that was so, reversal of the finding given by the trial court appears to be correct. That view having been upheld by the High Court and the finding recorded by the trial court having been reversed, we do not find that it is a fit case for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
1. In a second appeal the High Court refused to interfere with the order made by the District Judge in appeal. That appeal arose out of a suit by which the suit filed by the Wakf Board for the possession of the land comprising of kila no.216/3 (New) (Old No. 699) claiming that it was a Muslim graveyard and was thus, Wakf property which was the property in dispute, had been dismissed. Learned District Judge on examination of the revenue records and on appraisal of oral evidence tendered before him, came to give a finding that the property in dispute was Wakf property. If that was so, reversal of the finding given by the trial court appears to be correct. That view having been upheld by the High Court and the finding recorded by the trial court having been reversed, we do not find that it is a fit case for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
