Kundan Lal And Another v/s Kamruddin And Another

Kundan Lal And Another v/s Kamruddin And Another


Citation: Civil Appeal No.6657 of 2008, SCC403

Bench: R.K Agrawal, R.Banumathi

Court: High Court of Punjab &Haryana

Judgement Date: 1 December 2016


  1. Plaintiff was the tenant under Punjab Wakf Board since 01.04.1990 @Rs50 per month over the property of 120 square yard in Khasra No.270.
  2. In the month of November 1990, when his family had shifted to village Sikarpur in the wake of riots in the Ramjanam Bhumi & Babri Masjid and he was out of station on his truck.
  3. Taking advantage of his absence the appellants have taken illegal possession of the suit property.
  4. 2 Appellants have taken possession of the suit property from said Shivlal.
  5. The suit property was given by Punjab Wakf Board to Shivlal.
  6. The First Appellate Court, Rewari and the Trial Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants on the ground of no possession on the suit property

Issue raised:  Illegal Possession on the suit property given by Punjab Wakf Board to the Plantiff (who was accepted as tenant).


  1. Plaintiff argued he was tenant of the Punjab Wakf Board since 1 April 1990 of Khasra No.270 @Rs50 per month measuring. The suit property was 120 sq yd. Next, he said   appellant has taken illegal possession on his property when his family was alone.
  2. Further, Appellants on their side said that they have taken possession of the property from said Shivlal (who had taken the suit property from Punjab Wakf Board on lease). They further cleared that possession of the suit property were taken by the on the agreement date 16 May 1990.They said Punjab Wakf Boars also accepted them as their tenant of the suit property and started taking rent fro them @Rs100 per month.
  3. The learned council of the plaintiff claimed   Khasra N.270 was never allotted to said Shivlal and he could not enter into any agreement  in respect of Khasra No.270. They also presented the evidence (receipts regarding payment of rent by the plaintiff Ex. PW-2/2 to Ex. PW-10 and PW- 5/1 to Ex. PW-5/3 and Ex. PW-6/1 to Ex. PW-6/3). Next he presented the allotment order Ex. PW- 2/1 (that the plaintiff was allotted area measuring 126 square yards being Khasra No. 270 with effect from 01.04.1990)
  4. He also presented the fact that The Trial Court and The First Appellant Court also dismissed the appeal on the ground that Shivlal was never allotted Khasra No.270
  5. Then on this contesting appellants also presented the evidence of recorded receipts (Ex. DW-3/1, and Ex. DW-5/1 to Ex. DW- 5/4).


Firstly, The trial court dismissed the appellants appeal and held the issue in favour of the plaintiff and cleared that suit property was never allotted to the Shivlal. On this judgement appellant was failed to present strong evidence the for the possession of the suit property.

Next, The Fist Appellant court also dismissed the appeal given by appellant on the same bases.

Now, The High Court dismissed the same. Firstly the court held that recorded receipts presented by the appellants belong to Khasra No.267. Secondly, based on these evidence presented by both the parties court also held that appellant was allotted  and is in possession on different area (No.267) and he has no right to claim the suit property. Thirdly, court held that appellant shall not create any third party right.

Next, the court ordered and granted six months' time  to vacate the suit premises and will clear all the rent/dues/occupational charges to the Wakf Board  and will peacefully vacate the suit premises concerned within the stipulated time frame positively.


On my opinion appellant was not much wrong on his side because Punjab Wakf Board is somewhere responsible for all these as they only want their rent from their tenants but they never kept eye on any of their tenants. Second, the court’s judgement was quite acceptable in favour of plaintiff as he was paying timely rent to the Board.

0 comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.Required fields are marked