Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant argued that the suit is not maintainable as plaintiff is not the owner of the property. The rent receipts show that the property belongs to wakf and it can not be alienated. The defendant never admitted the plaintiff to be landlord. Thus, there is no merit in this suit and it may be dismissed.

10. I have considered the arguments and gone through evidence on record. My issues with findings are given as below:

ISSUE. 1 to 5

11. All the issues are inter­connected. The onus to prove his case lied on the plaintiff, thus these issues are taken up together. In Addagada Raghavamma and Anr vs Addagada Chenchamma and Anr 1964 AIR 136, 1964 SCR (2) 933, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "There is an essential distinction between burden of Proof and onus of proof, burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts." The plaintiff is seeking permanent injunction against the defendant on the basis that the defendants were tenant under the previous owners of the property from whom the plaintiff purchased the suit property. The defendants on the other hand, have alleged that the vendors of the sale deed Ex. PW1/2 were not the owners. The property belongs to a registered wakf. The vendor namely Rahat Kamal Hassan Khan was the muttawali of the wakf and the vendors could not alienate the property in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, in order to establish his right to seek relief of permanent injunction, it was obligatory for the plaintiff to establish that he is the owner of the suit property.

12. In this regard Section 51 or the wakf Act, 1995 is very important. It creates an embargo that where the alienation of wakf property is without sanction of the wakf board, the alienation of property is a void. In the present case the plaintiff has proved on record the receipts Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/4. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the receipts are forged and therefore the said receipts cannot be relied upon, however, no independent evidence much less to say the handwriting expert has been examined to prove that these are forged documents.