SOPANRAO & ANR. versus SYED MEHMOOD & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 37 · Decided: 03-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
37
SOPANRAO & ANR.
v.
                 SYED MEHMOOD & ORS.
 (Civil Appeal No.4478 of 2007)
  JULY 03, 2019
  [N. V. RAMANA, DEEPAK GUPTA AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Limitation Act, 1963 – Art. 65 – Suit filed by Respondent Nos.1
to 4 (plaintiffs) before the trial court against the present appellants
(defendants) stating that, the possession of the land in question
was illegally given to the Trust on 19.08.1978 by the Government–
It was prayed that the possession of the suit land be restored to the
plaintiffs– Defendants contested the suit inter alia on the ground
that the suit was not filed within the period of limitation and that the
suit land belonged to the Trust since time immemorial – Suit
dismissed– Plaintiffs filed appeal– Judgment reversed by District
Judge inter alia holding that the suit land belonged to the Dargah
(over which the plaintiffs were claiming rights of management) –
Defendants filed appeal in the High Court – Dismissed, however
the High Court modified the decree of the District Judge to the
limited extent that the plaintiffs and Defendant No.12 were held to
be descendents of Mutawalis and not Inamdars as held by the
District Judge – Held: As far as the issue of title is concerned, that
is a finding of fact arrived at by the District Judge and confirmed
by the High Court – This finding cannot be disturbed in Supreme
Court – Dargah was shown to be the owner as far back in 1325
Fasli (1915 A.D) in the official records – Similar entries were made
in 1342 Fasli (1932 A.D), 1943 and 1951– As per the record the
possession of land in question was handed over to the Trust only
on 19.08.1978– Judgments of the District Court and the High Court
are based on evidence – No question of law arises as far as
ownership of land is concerned – Further, admittedly the possession
of the land was handed over to the Trust only in 1978 and the suit
was filed in 1987 – Appellants’ contention that the limitation for the
suit is three years as the suit is one for declaration, rejected – Main
prayers made in the suit indicate that it was a suit not only for
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 37
  37
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
declaration but also for possession of the suit land– Limitation for
filing suit for possession on the basis of title is 12 years and,
therefore, the suit was within limitation – Merely because one of the
reliefs sought was of declaration that will not mean that the outer
limitation of 12 years was lost – Practice & Procedure – Bombay
Public Trusts Act, 1950 – s.50A – Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act,
1952.
Practice & Procedure – Grant of relief – Lesser relief/smaller
version of the relief prayed for – Held: Lesser relief or smaller
version of the relief claimed or prayed for can be granted .
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Issue of title is a finding of fact arrived at by the
District Judge and confirmed by the High Court. This finding
cannot be disturbed in Supreme Court.  However, through the
record it is found that the possession of land in question was
handed over to the Trust only on 19.08.1978. Nothing has been
brought on record to show that prior to 29.01.1973 the land was
entered in the name of the Trust. As per the pleadings of the
defendants a change report had been filed before the Assistant
Charity Commissioner, Latur and the said authority, without
issuing notices to the Inamdars/Mutawalis, allowed the said
application on 29.01.1973. The plaintiffs had no knowledge of
this application but on the basis of this order the Government
handed over the possession of the land to the Trust. It was only
after the Trust came into the possession of the land that the
mutation entry (Exhibit No.115) was made in favour of the Trust.
According to the plaintiffs, they came to know about this fact
only in 1986 when some publication in this regard was made by
the Assistant Charity Commissioner in terms of Section 50A of
the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and, thereafter, they filed
the suit.  It was the plaintiffs, as observed by the District Judge
as well as the High Court, who had proved that the suit land
belonged to the Dargah.  According to the High Court, the
plaintiffs were not actually Inamdars and were manning the affairs
of the Dargah in the nature of Mutawalis.  Evidence was led by
the plaintiffs to show that they had been held to be the successors
of one Nizamuddin, the original Mutawali of the Dargah by the
competent authority under the Hyderabad Atiyat Inqu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.