In Brief
This case addresses the jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunals versus Civil Courts under the Wakf Act, 1995. The Punjab Wakf Board filed two separate suits: one for injunction (against Sham Singh Harike) and one for possession (against Teja Singh), both involving leased wakf property. The High Court reversed the Tribunal orders, relying on Ramesh Gobindram judgment holding eviction disputes lie in Civil Court. The Supreme Court distinguished Ramesh Gobindram: when a defendant disputes whether property is wakf property (as opposed to merely disputing tenant rights), that question falls under Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act and must be decided by the Tribunal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's jurisdiction in the Sham Singh case (where wakf status was disputed) but upheld dismissal in the Teja Singh case (where possession was disputed for admitted wakf property under the 1995 Act's original regime).
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.