LexKARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKF versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKF A V. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. APRIL 16, 2004 [RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] B Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904: Wakf Act, 1954-Sections 4, 26 and 56 : c Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964-Sectbn 67: Acquisition of suit property by Government of India as ancient protected monument-Acquisition proved by documentary and ocular evidence-Inquiry .under Revenue Act and declaration of the property as Wakf property by Notification-Suit by Government to declare the Notification as invalid and D declaring Government as the owner by adverse possession-Suit decreed- High Court affirmed the finding of trial Court holding that Government is owner even by adverse possession-On appeal, held: Suit property is Government property and not Wakf property-However, the plea of adverse possession is unsustainable as the same neither pleaded nor proved-Ancient E Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder XL/, Rule 27-Additional evidence-Plea to adduce at the final stage of case in appellate Court- Nature of documents not known-Held: Additional evidence not to be adduced as there was ample time during pendency of the case in the trial as well as F appellate Court. Adverse possession-Meaning and nature of-Discussed. Respondent-Government of India came to know that appellant-Wakf Board got published a Notification inl976 showing that certain properties G were declared as 'Wakf Property' in terms of Section 26 of Wakf Act, 1954 and was also published in the Gazette. It filed three suits regarding the properties seeking declaration of the Notification as illegal and void and to declare Government as owner of the properties as it perfected its 255 H 256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. A title by adverse possession. It claimed that they had acquired the property under ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904. Respondent-State produced the relevant copy of Register of Ancient protected Monuments Exb. P-1 wherein the Government was mentioned as the owner of the suit prop-:rty and Exb. P-2 and CTS records which show that the property B stood in the name of the respondent. The evidence of Power of Attorney holder of Defendant Nos. 2A and 28 show that the suit property was declared as protected monuments and there was signboard to this effect in the suit property which was in its possession and the present building was constructed at the expenditure of the respondent State. C The case of the appellant-Wakf Board was that in lJth century some Arabian Saint acquired the properties and constructed mosque which was under management of lineal descendants of the saint; that by virtue of Notification in 1976 and Gazette Notification they became absblute owners; that after enquiry u/s 67 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 suit property was declared as Wakf property, and State could not claim D ownership by adverse possession. Trial Court decreeing the suit held that respondent State were the owners and managing the suit property. It found that in view of evidence it was proved that respondent State had taken the properties as ancient monuments even prior to introduction of Survey Department; that appellant Wakf failed to show that they remained in E possession of the property even after demise of the saint; and that the property was declared as Wakf property without following relevant provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954 and without following due procedure in a case where there is dispute as to who is a stranger to the Wakf, a mere declaration would not bind such person. In appeal to High Court, appellant at the end of the arguments sought to adduce further evidence and for F that sought remand of the case to Trial Court. High Court did not allow the plea and held that respondent State was owner by adverse possession affirming the findings of Trial Court. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the ~ourt G HELD: 1. Appellants could not be permitted to adduce further evidence before the Court to substantiate their claim. When the matters were pending before the trial Court and the High Co.urt they had ample opportunity to do so. It is also not clear as to the nature of the documents which they seekto produce which will tilt the matter one way or the other. H The scope of Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC is very clear to the fact that the KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKF v. GOVT. OF INDIA 257 parties
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.