The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS/ Plaintiffs 1 to 5 IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition unde. Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.9212016 (old O.S.No.138/2006) d1.2610312021 on the file of Telangana State Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitiorrer: SRI DONT|NENI SRINIVASA RAO, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 : SRI F. VENUGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL, ON BEHALF OF MS. KRISHNA KEERTHANA Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: SRI FARAH AZAM KHAN, SC FORWAQF BOARD The Court made the foliowing ORDER: {; HON'BLI' SRI JU$TICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CML REVISIOII PETITION No. 700 OF 2021 ORDER: This Revision is direcled against the judgment and dccrcc of the Telangana State Wakf Tribunai at Hyderabad in O.S.No. 92 of 2016 (oid O.S.No. 138 of 2006) dated 26.O3.2A21. '2- Sincc, admittedl1., there u'as interim order of sfa/us qr.io gran ted during pendencl. of suit, which .subsisted till disposal cf the suil, ::,hile aCmitting lhis Revision on

24.06.2021 , tnis Cor-irt dir:ected both the parties to maint:rin sialus quo as on datc ir-i aii rcspects till disposal of the Revision.

3. Delenciants in lhe suit are petitioners and plain';ifis are responclents herein. The suit r,,,as liied for grant of perpetual in-jur-rciion iirslraining ileiendarts I lo 4 lrom interfering r'r.itir possession ancl cnjol-nent of plaintills over part and pai-cel of Mouia Ali Chiila in Surve\. I'lo. 511 ard its aatached r.vnqf lanC in Surve.,r Nos. 21 a:ntl 22 admeasuring Acs.5.33 guntas situatcd al- Chevelja Vrllage and Ir4aridal, Ranga Reridy District- For the sakc of conveniencc, parties herein trre relerred to as they are arrayed irr t"he suit. 2 +. l1-re czrsc of plaintifis is that there is a cl-iila 'Moula A1i' got att:iched to the suil land. It is stated that one Lal It4ohammecl cf Cher.,elia Village had six sons; out of them, the 1"t plaintiff is onll'alive, other piaintiifs and defendants l, 3 and 4 are grand-,:hildren or great grand-chilciren of late Lal Moharnmcd. It is also stated, Lal Mohammed u.as acting as de facto-Mutas'al1i of the suit Chilla anci rendering necessan' services and afte r his de ath, thc 1"t plaintiff ias bee n discharging the duties as such. It is -..laied, taking arlvantage of his o1d a.ge. celendants 1 lo 4. rvho aie .riosel]' reltited to him and assisting irl r-lischargrng lhc dulits .: j' lv{iit.rrr:r1li. :rrc trying to alienate 1i-re ri aqf propci'i\'. According to piaintifis, irr thc pahari fur 1960-61, the name of D:rigah Hazrali-i ivloulz.l A1i is ilotcC in Colur:rn Nos. i i ar-rd 12 as K1-raitedar ancl patraciar- like s'isc iir 1;irhanis for i9A7-8A, i99O 9i, but hor,,,"cver, in the pah:rni lor l!)94 95, the names of tu/o sons of lat"e Jahan Eir t,iz. fulohd. Bashcer and Mohd. Nazr:cr v,.ere shoq'n as khatedars / pattaclais in respect of suit land; again in 2000-O i , pahani shcu.cd thc names of riefendants f io 4 and some othcrs as l<hatedars/ pattaCars and \ i , / {-} I i I -l Survey Nos. 21 and 22 were divided into seven bits and defendants I to 4 started interfering with plaintiffs during cultivation operations though the suit iand is in the joint possession and en joyment of de facto Mutawallis and successors of La1 Mohammed. Taking advantage of entry oi their names in revenue records during the years stated supra, Defendants 1 to 4 have been trying to meddle with the property on which both plaintiffs and Delendants 1 to 4 have responsibilify to protect.

5. On the other hand, Defendants I to 4 admitted the relationship be tween the parties, existence of Chiila Moula Ali in Survey No.6/ 1, but denied the same got attached with the suit land. It is stated, lald covered by Survey Nos. 2 1 and 22 is two to three kilometres ar,r,ay from Chilla and late Mohd. Jahangir, father of the 1.t defendant and grandlather of Defendalts 3 and 4 was the original pattadar and possessor of the said land whose name uras recorded in revenue records. After his demise, it is claimed, names of his two sons Mohd. Basheer and Mohd- Nazeer (the lst defendant) were entered in revenue records. The 2"a defendant is the wife of Mohd. Basheer and / .1 Defendants 3 i,rnd 4 arc his sons. Aftcr thc deaih of Mohd. Basheer in 1995, iand q..as mutated in l,]re nan-ies of l)cicnCants 2 ia 4, u'hile the share ol ihe I 't dcfcnciant i-emained intact. Thus, it is ciairred, defendants 1 to 4 are absolute c,r'iners and possessors tlf the suit lanci. O.S.No. 1a 1 of 20O5 filed b1, onc of thc daughters of late l\4ohcl. Jahangir in rerspect oj' suit land againsr Delendants I to 4 ended in ccmpromise and fir-ra1 de crec r,vas passed ,rn 29.09.20O5 under u,hich legai heirs oi late Mohd. Jahangir stood cntitled for each share o[ the suit iand. Since i 9921. namcs oi Dcfe ndants 1 to 4 hale be en re ileuLecl in Lhe rrrvcnLic ;-er:c,ris e\-en to the knor,.'iedge oi pl:li:riiiis.

6. ihe case of the 6n, respcndent Waqf Bo:r.-l !s Lirat ,.hc p.oper''.\ is a registered and notificd u,aqf i:ropertr'. 7 . in the orcier uncle r Rci is ion , rt r s obsi r-ved that Lx.Ri2 is .:i:rtified copy of the Chesaia lrahani lbr' 1955-J8. vrl..ercin Darg:rh llzt. Moula Aii was shor,,'n in c-oiurnn lio. i i and in Column I 2 ii is rnentioned as 'pr3t-13' ior both Sul'i'e..1 h"os.21 and 22. In ]fx.Bi3 and Ex.B 14 also simiiar cirtrics ilere irtade confirming tirat Dargah Hazratb Mourla A1i is the p:rtt::dar oI thc suit 1and, thus all the revenue records ,'e'hich are issrrr:d hy the ) ) - .4r.1 _5 revenue authorities including Exs.A1 to ,{3 and trxs.B12 to 814 clinchingly establish that suit land is in possession of piaintiffs as the defacto mutawallis and the suit land is waqf property. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of p.W.1 or D.W.2 to discard or disbelieve their evidence u,hich is fully supported by the documents referred to above. It is further observed that Ex.Bl to 84 are the pattadar passbooks issued in the name of defendants 1 to 4 in respect of Survey Nos- 2l and 22 with different extents. ln the remarks column in Exs.B 1 toB4, proceedings number is mentioned. These documents would show that they are of recent origin issued in 1995 or thereafter. Exs.BS to 89 are the certified copes of pahanis tor 1995-96, 1995-96, 7996_97, 7996_ 97 and 7997-9a respectively; the names of either defendants 1 to 4 or defendant No. 1 and Basheer husband of defendant No.2 are mentioned in respect of Survey Nos. 21 arrd. 22 with sub_ division numbers. The basis for the said extents of land is not explained by them. However, in the present case, patta in the name of subject Dargah is proved with authentic documents iike trxs.Al to A3, A6 andAT and also trxs.B12 to 814. Ex.A6 is () nol set asioc -.ro far. It appears that oniv Revenue Inspector issueci Ex.Il10, s'hich is the proccedt'igs issucci by the Rccorrling Authoriii-. Cheveila. iv{uch creCit cannol },. attachecl to this document as it was 1'rot even issued b]' the 'lahsildar' Mandai Rett:nue Officer. Apart from l,hat thc oldest document Ex.A1 pahani ior i96O-61 exhibiteci by plaintiffs s;irorvs that Dargah Hzt. Moula Ali is the pattadar oi thc sult 1alC. Ex.B10 does not d j-"clo-"e that any notice r,vas sen.ed r.;rr cithcr the Waqf Bc,ard or the plarnliffs herein acting as deiacto -NIu i:irl':rliis of thc Dargah. irr p:rra 2 oi trx.B10 though it is nr:ni:trr-red that ihe .ralte I lras l-.:tn enqui::ecl in tlt i iliag'-: i'.:tr1 no objccrit.us u e rc receiYe d, thc details of those enquil' ar. i'!ot c-isckrsed in Er.B10. V,rhen ihe suit land is in the nair-- ci tl:e subject Dargah, iht oillccr passing trx.B10 proccirlngs t'ilh:;ut giving an\ opportril-ritr io t'e aiiecled pel:rlons, b|rs,ng on the mere r..ppiicatior. o j one Mohd. Bashee r, .is lnril Lio e d in the r:iercnce. c.-:ss,:i llx.BlO proceeciings rvhich is r-lo1 l''irlid. Thc Court belorv after thoroughi.'; going ti'rough the evidcnce, both oral and documentary. linail-v hcld th:t plaintifis aparl irom esta'nlishing the fact that thel. art- in iau'iui I , I t a possession of suit lands by performing the duties of defacto - Mutawalli of suit iand and Defendants 1 to 4 tried to interfere with their possession, also estaLrlished that suit land is vr,,aqf properfy. It was further held that all the documents produced by Defendants 1 to 4 pertain to i995 or 1996 or thereafter only which do not prove their righl or possession over the suit 1and.

8. Heard Sri Dontineni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for petitioners Farah Azam Khan, learned Standing Counsel for Waqf Board and Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Ms. Krishna Keerthana. The 2"d respondent rvas deleted from the array of parties as per the order dated

14.12.2021.

9. From a perrrsal of the order impugned, having heard learned counsel on either side, it is evident that the oral evidence of P.W. 1 coupled ri'ith Exs.A 1 to A3 and A6 to A7, certified copies of pahanis lor the years 196O-61, 1987-SS, 1990-91, Gazette dated 16.02.1989 and Suney Commissioner's report, which are authentic documents, go to show that the subject Dargah Chi11a is pattadar and plaintiffs are Mutau,allis of suit land. It is settled principle that once a waqf properlz is S alrr:lvs a \\'eqf property. Further, thr: evidence of D.W 2 Shaik L Noor Sahcl-.. lnspector Aucirior tt'orking uncier the ir"aqf Boarcl r-,'i-.l rch ciisclr-.scs that there is :l r.vaqf instituticn Chilia \{ourii.r Ali in Sun,e-v* No.5/ I and it is a notified rt'aql having .-,gricu1tura1 land in Sutrvev Nos. 21 ar,d 22 admeasuring Acs.5.il3 guntas .lrtached to it. This u'itness also claims thal Defcnda:'rts 1 to 4 cbrained p;.'ladar passbooks in respect of suit land ri'ithou" the knou'ledgc ol the Waql Board. On the other ha.nd, clcfe ndants reiieri on Uxs.B i to 84 - pattadar pass books in lhc n:rtre ol |]cfendani:i i to 4. h oli.'e-,zer, the said documents shc: ihat thtjr l.c cl fcctir:-r lrigin issued in 1995 or there:rfttt-. Ls.LJ: !o ll'l are certificc' lopies of pahanis for 1995 96,1996 c;i , 1997 98 re spectir.e ]y u,herein the narnes of either De fcndant s i to 4 or ii-i(: 1'r rlell:nclant and Ir{cihd. Basheer, husbancl oi the 2"d iieiend:rni ri'as mentioned. However, as could be sccn from ixs.i\ i to ,\',. A7, as noted supra, and trxs.B12 to B -1. ccrtiiled 15pies of Ciresia Pahani iar ine years 1q55 to i958, 1l:rhar-ris i'.lr ',.972-7 -? e:.rd 197?,-74, the name of Dargah is 1-roved x'il}-r a,.rthentic ililcliments. Though D.W.1, in his cross-c;;.lrnination, staied tha. in 1980, the go'rernment issued patta to his lather I 9 I I Mohd. Jahangir, no such document $,as produced before thc Tribunal or this Court. Not only that, defendants in their written statement took the plea that one of the daughters of Jahangir tiled O.S.No. 141 of 2O05 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Chevelia which ended in compromise and a Iinal decree u.as passed therein, they did not produce the same before the Tribunal to prove their bona fides.

10. The evidence of P.W. 1 also made it clear that one Krishna Reddy and ailother person rvere negotiating rvith Defendants 1 , 3 and 4 for the sale of suit lanC unlarvfully. Ai1 these aspects would go to show that Defendants 1 to 4 are trying to lnterfere with the waqf property which is in possession of plaintiffs who have been performing the duties of defacto - Mutawallis. 1 i. In the light of the same, parlicularly in the light oi the fact that the documents produced by Defendants 1 to 4 pertain to 1995 or 1996 or thereafter, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly decieed the suit holding that plaintiffs could establish their claim over the suit / 10 1zlnC. There are no grounds much less vaiid glounds to takc:r a conlra vicri'.'lhe Rcvi-sion is Lhcrefore, liable to be clisrnissed.

72. Nc cost s.

13. closed. i'l:r: Cir.il Revision Petition is accordingl5', <iismissed. Visceilaneous Applications, ii any shal1 stanci \ To, Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSIST,ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \\ c CTION OTFICER

1. The Telangana State Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Dontineni Srinivasa Rao, Advocate,(OPUC) 3. One CC Ms. KRISHNA KEERTHANA, Advocate (OPUC) 4. One CC to M/s. G. BHANU PRIYA, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies l,s I HIGH COURT DATED:1110212025 ORDER CRP.No.700 of 202. DISMISSING 1'HE CRI' WITHOU'I'(]OSTS F 'i-r. l. o \ .s o s\ * .-... .qD 4-. ".. {i .) .'r ?,o