LexSAYYED ALI AND ORS. versus ANDHRA PRADESH WAKF BOARD HYDERABAD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SAYYED ALI AND ORS. v. ANDHRA PRADESH WAKF BOARD HYDERABAD AND ORS. JANUARY 28, 1998 B [DR. A.S. ANAND AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] The Wakf Act 1954: Sections 3(1) and 6-Definition of Wakf-Grants by way of service inams for the purposes recognised by Muslim Law as pious, religious or charitable would constitute the property as Wakf-Once a wakf C is created, it continues to be so for all times to come-Grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect its original character as wakf-Any dispute with regard to character of wakf property-To be decided in the manner provided under Section 6. Andhra Pradesh (AA) lnams (Abolition And Conversion into Ryotwarij D Act, 1956-Sections 3 and 14-Jurisdiction of tehsildar while conducting enquiry under Section 3-No power to conduct inquiry on character of wakf property-Section 14 presupposes an order passed within jurisdiction. Code a/Civil Procedure, 1908-Section I I-Res Judicata-Presupposes E the existence of decree or judgment which is legal-Can not be founded on a judgment which is without jurisdiction. The respondent-Wakf Board has allegeiJ that the property in dispute is a wakf property endowed by the Nizam of Hyderabad for support and service of the Dargah in Visakhapatnam. After the constitution of the Wakf F Board, the said property was notified as a Wakf property in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 30.11.1961. It was further alleged that the Mutawallis >-- managing the said property executed long term leases in favour of tenants ~ who on their turn executed long-term sub-leases. The Wakf Board filed a suit on 8.8.1976 for cancellation of the various leases and sub-leases and for recovering the possession thereof. The sub-lessees contested the suit on the G ground that the grant was not in favour of the dargah but in favour of individuals burdened with the service and therefore the said property was not a Wakf property. The suit was dismissed on 14.2.75 on the ground that the inam was made in favour of named individuals and that the said property was not wakf property. The wakf Board preferred an appeal before the High H Court which was allowed and its suit was decreed on 6.8.84. The High Court 398 " -<'. - " ( -~ 'r --< ~ ~, .., SAYYED ALI v. A.P WAKF BOARD HYDERABAD 399 relied upon the following documents for holding that the said property was A wakf property-(i) an extract from the loam Fair Register which indicate that the inam was granted for support of the Dargah; (ii) a certified copy of the decree dt. 17.12.1903 which shows that the title deed issued by the Inam Commissioner was cancelled as the grantees were not rendering service at the Dargah which was challenged by the Mokhasadar by means of a suit; (iii) B copy of the compromise decree dated 7.2.1910 arrived at between the Govt. and the Mokhasadar which stipulated how the income from the said property was to be utilised for services and that if the terms of the compromise are not fulfilled, the grant would be resumable; (iv) a copy of the survey report dated 2.4.1956 wherein it was found that the inam was granted for service of the dargah and was tax free. c Before the above suit was filed, the Tahsildar had made a suo motu enquiry under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (AA) loams (Abolition And Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 for the purposes of grant of pattas. The Tahsildar while holding that the said property was inam land, further held that it was not held by any institution. The order of the Tahsildar was D confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and subsequently by the High Court on 22.4.70. The present appeal is against the order of the High Court dated 6.8.84 whereby the original suit of the Wakf Board was decreed. The contentions E raised by the appellant were:- (1) the property in dispute was in fact a grant in favour of individuals and not a wakf property; (ii) the findings recorded by the High Court as regards the character of the said property in its order dated 22.4. 70 constituted res j udicata; (iii) the suit instituted by the Wakf Board was not maintainable in view of Section 14 of the loams Act; (iv) once patta, under the loams Act has been granted to the Mokhasadar, it was not F open to the High Court to hold the said property to be Wakf property. Dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the High Court, this Court. HELD : 1.1. The view taken by the High Court that the disputed G property was Wakf as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.