L.N. Mittal, J.@mdashDefendant Jarnail Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing judgment and decree dated 16.02.2005 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar as Wakf Tribunal, thereby decreeing the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff-Punjab Wakf Board (in short-the Board), for possession of the suit land measuring 40 kanals. Case of the plaintiff-respondent is that it is owner of the suit land and it was leased out to defendant-petitioner for one year ending on 30.06.1992. The lease was not renewed, and therefore, possession of the defendant was unauthorized over the suit land.
2. The defendant contested the suit and denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land. It was alleged that by misrepresentation, the plaintiff made the defendant to pay lease money of the suit land to the plaintiff since the year 1977 till the year 1992 erroneously. The defendant was already in possession of the suit land since consolidation of holdings. Various preliminary objections were also raised.
3. Learned Wakf Tribunal has decreed the suit of the plaintiff Board. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this revision petition.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file including file of Wakf Tribunal, with their assistance.
5. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit land has been described to be Shamlat Deh in jamabandi (Ex. P-3), and therefore, respondent-Board is not owner of the suit land. The contention cannot be accepted. Vide Gazette notification (Ex. P-4) issued u/s 5(2) of the Wakf Act, 1954, the suit land has been notified as Wakf property. On the other hand, entry in jamabandi is rebuttable. Moreover, the petitioner-defendant has admitted that he had been paying lease money to the plaintiff-Board. Consequently, in view of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the defendant is estopped from denying the ownership of the plaintiff-Board over the suit land.
6. In addition to the aforesaid, the defendant in his cross-examination, has admitted his signatures on various documents including kabuliyatnama i.e. lease deed executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff, application moved by defendant to plaintiff for giving concession in lease money, letters written by defendant to plaintiff for deposit of lease money and also letter expressing his readiness and willingness to deposit the lease money and also letter intimating the deposit of lease money by defendant with plaintiff. In view of these documents also, it is manifest that the defendant himself has been admitting the plaintiff to be owner of the suit land. These documents also pertain to the year 1998 and the year 2000. Consequently, the stand of the defendant that he paid lease money to the plaintiff up to the year 1992 only is also untenable.
7. It is thus manifest that finding of the Tribunal that plaintiff-Board is owner of the suit land is unexceptionable on the basis of evidence on record. Since the defendant repudiated the lease and even denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land, possession of the defendant became unauthorized, and therefore, suit of the plaintiff has been rightly decreed for possession of the suit land.
8. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner, relying on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
