The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order granted by this Court CRP No 6671 of 2017 dated 2210912022, t[|2011012022 untill further orders in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the xerox documents filed along with this petition for the purposes of hearing. Counsel for the Petitioners in all CRPs : Sri K.S.Suneel Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in all CRPs : Sri Abu Akram (SC FOR TSWB) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3 in all CRPs The Gourt made the following : Sritlohd.lsmail : COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CML REVISION PETITION Nos.648g,6SS6 e,66711 2OtZ COMMON ORDER: Since the /is and parties invorved in these revision petitions are same, these matters were heard together and are disposed ol'by way of this common order.

2. cRP.No.6483 of 2o17 is fired challenging the judgment and decreer dated 08.08.2017 that was passed dismissing oS.No.10 ol 2016 (oLD os.No.S1 of 2ooo) which vt,as filed for seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from conducting open auction and not to interfere into peaceful possession, of land admeasuring Acs.20 in survey No.59 of Tadlapally village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District, and Acs.35.01 guntas in survey No.656/3 of Kandi Village, Sangareddy Taluq, Medak District; cRP.No.6556 of 2olz is filed against the judgment and decree dated o8.0u.2017 that was passed dismissing c)S.No.6 of 2016 (OLD OS.No.96 of Lgggl which was file,l seeking declaration of title and injunction against the defendants, of land admeasuring Acs. 13.25 guntas in survey No.31 I, Ac. 1.06 guntas in survey No.359/ 1, Acs.S.oo guntas jn survey \ 2 No.359/2 and Acs.9.00 guntas on svrveg Np'214 of Sanga Reddy Village and Mandal, Medak District ; and CRP.No.6671 of 2Ol7 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2017 passed dismissing OS.No.4 of 2016 (OLD OS.No.69 of 1999) which was filed seeking declaration of title and injunction against the defendants, of land admeasuring Acs.4.15 guntas in survey No.222, Acs.S and 18 guntas in survey No.22311, Acs.14 and 30 guntas in survey No.4L2, of Kalvakunta Village, Sangareddy Taluq, Medak District, on the fiIe of the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal. The brief facts of the cases are that the petitioner Nos. i 3. to 13 are legal heirs of petitioner No.l/plaintiff - Mir Ahmed Ali, who claim ownership of certain lands in Medak District, Telangana, asserting that the lands were originally owned by Ashrafunnissa Begum @ Pathru Bee, who passed them down to her brother Mir Gulam Mehdi. The father of plaintiff and paternal uncle Mir Shoukath Ali and Mir Hussain Ali, respectively, were joint pattadars of the land, and the plaintiff contends that he inherited a share of the land from his father and has a clear title to the suit lands. The claim of the plaintif was based on a partition decree passed in O'S'No'l7ll99l' I 3 ! which confirmed his ownership of the suit lands' That apart' theplaintiffhtldfiledsuitsuideo.S.No.4of2oL6(subject matterolCRP.No.667lot2017)ando.S.No.6of20|6(subject matterolCRP,No.6556of2o|7|fordeclarationoftitleand permanent injunction, against the Waqf Board and others' However, the waqf Board disputes the same, alleging that the landsareMashrutulKhidmatlandsattachedtotheDeendar Khan Mosque' and are waqf properties' The Waq[ Board contendedthertthelandswerededicatedtothemosquefor religious purposes and are therefore waqf proPerties. In Board relied on a support of the said contention, publication irr the A.P' Gazette in 1955, which listed the subject lands as waqf ProPerties'

4.TheWaqtBoardhadfiledasuituideo.S.No.2olofl99o for permanent injunction against the sons of Mir Hussain Ali' but the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. The plaintiff issued a statutory notice under Section 80 CPC and Section gg of the waqf Act, disclosing his intention of instituting a suit against the Waqf Board and others, and subsequently' he filed three suits against the Waqf Board and others, seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction, and restraint on the 4 Waqf Board from conducting an auction of the suit lands. The said suits are O.S.No.4 of 2016, O.S.No.6 of 2016, and O.S.No.1O of 2016. The Waqf Tribunal dismissed the said suits uide judgment and decree dated o8.08.2o17 holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and ownership over the suit lands and that the lands are waqf properties attached to the mosque. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff/revision petitioner No.1, I-rled these revision petitions.

5. Heard Sri KS. Suneel, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Abu Akram, learned standing counsel for Telangana State Waqf Board, and Sri Mohd. lsmail, learned counsel for respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the finding of the Waqf Tribunal that the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to prove title and ownership is clearly fallacious and mutually inconsistent. He averred that on one hand, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the plaintiff or his ancestors do not have title to the suit land, while on the other hand, it has commented that no succession certi{icate from a civil Court has been obtained to the effect that the plaintiff is I 5 the successor to Ashrafunnisa Begum @ Pathru Bee. He contended that this inconsistency arises as the Tribunal has seemingly accepted the title and ownership of Pathn-r Bee but has non-suited the plaintiff solely on the ground that no succession/inheritance through Pathru Bee has been established. He lamented that the said approach is flawed under the Mohammedan Law, whereunder, it is stated succession to immovable properties does not require a Court decree., and that the claim of plaintiff that he is the son of the brother of Pathru Bee ought not to have been ignor:ed by the Waqf Tribunal, especially when the title of Pathru Bee was not rejected by l-he Tribunal, and there is no adverse claim by any other successor of Pathru Bee. He asserted that Pathru Bee died issueless, due to which her brother Mir Gulam Mehdi Ali would have succeeded to the suit lands, and the plaintiff, being the grandson of Mir Gulam Mehdi Ali, is a clear successor 1-o the suit lands. He pointed out tha.t the two crucial documents, namely, the original sethwar of 1333F and the supplementary sethwar of 1951, would clearly show that the suit lands are patta lands, and that although some entries in the sa,id older documents may be incoherent, the presumption of correctness under Section 9O of thre Evidence \ 6 Act protects the case of petitioner/plaintiff. Neither the Waqf Board nor the District collector, despite claiming title, has pleaded any specific case of acquisition of title, and that in such a scenario, when both parties adduce evidence claiming title, the concept of burden of proof becomes less significant, and the focus should be on determining the rightful owner based on the evidence Presented.

7. In addition, learned counsel for petitioners challenged the Waqf Tribunal's reliance on Ex.B4, the Hyderabad Gazette Notification, contending that the Hyderabad Gazette Notification (Ex.B4), which indicates an extent of 1O6 acres for Namaz purpose in favor of a mosque at Kalwakunta, is not a Waqf Gazette Notification under Section 5(2) of the Waqf Act, tg54 or 1995. He lamented that without a survey conducted by the Survey Commissioner under Section 4, the Gazette publication under Section 5(2) is legally incompetent, and as no such survey or report has been pleaded or Iiled as evidence, Ex.B4 renders to be ineffective in supporting the waqf Board's contention. Additionally, he challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the suit lands are Inam lands/Mashrutul Khidmat inams for Deendar Khan Mosque, 7 a ! and that given the Telangana Inam Abolition Act, 1955, which abolished all inams and vested lnam lands in lavor of the State, the said linding that the suit lands are bot.h waqf lands and Inam lands is self-contradictory. He assertecl that when the suit lands are shown as patta lands in the original sethwar, supplementary sethwar, and Khasra Pahani, it is impermissible for the Waqf Board to claim any right, title, or entitlement over the same. He articulated that the Waqf Board is estopped from claiming any title to the suit land as it had instituted a suit for permanent injunction uide O.S.No.2O1 of 199o which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Fte reiterated that estoppel can extinguish substantial rights over immovable propert5r, due to which the Waqf Board's claim to the suit lands is barred by the principle of estoppel. Therefore, while advocating that the impugned judgment_ and decree dated 08.08.2017 in OS.Nos.lO, 4 and 6 of 2016 are unsustainable in law due to its inconsistencies, he prayed this Court to allow these revision petitions.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that the wakf Tribunal rightJy dismissed o-s.No.1o of 2016 (subject matter of CRp.No.64B3 of 2o1l \ 8 filed by the petitioner, seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the proposed auction of the suit schedule property, on the ground that the propert5r in question - comprising in Sy.No.59 (Acs.20.O0) of Taolaypalli Village and Sy.No.656/3 (Acs.35.O 1) at Kandi Village, totaling to Acs.55.O1 - was not private property but Mashratul Kidmat Inam (Conditional Service Inam) dedicated for the upkeep and religious activities of the Deendar Khan Mosque, Sangareddy. He contended that the land records as produced by petitioner (Exs.Al to A12) were inconsistent, vague, and did not cover the entire claimed extent, nor did they establish the property as Mafi Inam, and that only a portion of land (Ac.9-2O gts in Sy.No.656 l3AA and one pahani for Ac.35.OO) was shown as inam, which did not substantiate the claim that the entire property was Mafi Inam. He lamented that the petitioner failed to establish any right of succession over the property, having not produced any legal heir certilicate or succession proceedings, and that the same was admitted by both PWl (petitioner) and Pw2 (his son) with the only succession application made by a relative - Syed Hyder Hussain, having not resulted in anY certificate- 9

9. In addition, he contended that the Tribunal also noted that the petitioner lacked any written authority from his brother Laiq Ali, who was an equal co-sharer in the alleged propert5r, thereby, making the suit legally untenablt:. Further, regarding the nature of the propert5r, he highlighted that the Tribunal relied upon documentary evidence including the Munthakab (Ex-B21, the Nizam Government Prime Minister's order (Ex-B3), and the Gazette Notilication (Ex-Ba) dated

24.02.1955, all of which established that the property was granted as Conditional Service Inam for performing Namaz and maintaining the Mosque, and that the said dedication rendered the land a Wakf, and once declared so in the Gazette, its status as Wakf was final and bincling under Section 6 of the Wakf Act. He averred that the petitioner never challenged the Gazette Notification, therefore, the validity of the same cztnnot be disputed now.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the Occupancy Rights Certilicates (ORCs) granted to the petitioner and others were rightly cancelled by the Joint Collector in an appeal under Section 24 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, reiterating that such inam \ 10 lands could vest only with the institution (Wakf) and not with individuals. Reliance was placed on the second and final report of the A.P. Legislative Assembly Committee on Wakf Properties, which conclusively declared the suit schedule land as Wakf property attached to Deendar Khan Mosque, overriding the findings of an earlier committee. He contended that the petitioner had admitted in his evidence that portions of the land were alreadv sold by him and his brother to third parties, thereby, undermining his claim over the entire suit propert5r, disregarding the petitioner's reliance on o.S.No.l7 of 1990 (partition suit), which did not contain any schedule or propert5r description relevant to the current dispute. Further, the petitioner and his witnesses (PW 1 and PW2) also admitted that the Wakf Board was in possession and management of the property, and that no challenge had ever been made to its authority or the Gazette notification, and that the land had always been held for religious purposes and was recognized as wakf property in historical records, Government documents, Gazette notilications, and the book of endowments' I 1. In support of the above contentions, he relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case t * 11 of Principal Secretary, Revenue Department vs' B' Rangaswamyl to contend that documents not produced or proved during trial cannot be relied upon for the first time in appeal ; accordingly, any attempt by the petil-ioner to introduce new material at a later stage was impermissible. He urged that the doctrine oorlce a Wakf' ahtays a Wakf squarely applied to the present case, and since the land was notilied as Wakf property in 1955 and the notification remained unchallenged, the petitioner or any tkrird party claimingasMafilnamdarorMokhasadarcouldnotalterits legalcharacter.Therefore,whileadvocatingthattheTribunal hadrighttydismissedO.S.No.lOof2016(subjectmatterof CRP.No.6483 of 201n he prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petition stating that the same lacks merits'

12. In CRP Nos.6556 and, 6671 0f 2017 , the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, submitted that the Wakf Trib,.rnal rightly dismissed o.s.No.O6 of 2016, as the petitio,er failed to establishtitleorpattadarrightsoverthesuitlandsclaimedin various survey numbers, including Sy'No'214' which was partly acquired by the Government' He contended that the ' [(zozz) s ALD 9 (sc)] 12 contention of petitioner that the lands were Mafi Inam inherited from Pathru Bee through succession and a partition compromise decree in O.S.No.l7 of 1991 was rejected, as the documents were vague, lacked proper land descriptions, and were unsupported by legal heir or succession certificates. He averred that the Tribunal noted that the ORCs granted to the petitioner and his relatives were cancelled by the Joint Collector upon finding that the property was not private land but Mashratul Kidmat Inam (Conditional Service Inam) attached to Deendar Khan Mosque, dedicated for religious purposes, as conl-rrmed by the Munthakab, the declaration of the Nizam's Prime Minister, and the Gazette Notilication. He asserted that the Tribunal further relied on consistent land records from 1955 onwards and the findings of the Second House Committee of the Legislative Assembly, which recognized the property as Wakf, and the testimonies of PWl and PW2 revealed admissions that they lacked legal authority, succession proof, or pattadar rights, and acknowledged the Wakf Board's possession and management. He lamented that DWs, including the Tahsildar (Dw3), confirmed the wakf nature of the land, due to which the Tribunal rightly rejected the petitioner's claim, as no credible evidence rebutted the 13 property's established character as conditional service Inam dedicated to the Mosque. He submitted that the petitioner,s claim of joint ownership over the suit schedure properer through succession from Pathru Bee, based on a partition deed and compromise decree in O.S.No. lT llgg|, was untenable as the documents were vague, lacked proper schedule descriptions, and failed to establish title over the entire land. He contended that no legal heir or succession certificate '*,as produced to prove the petitioner's relationship '*'ith Pathrur Bee, and that the oRCs granted to the petitioner were rightl-v cancelled by the Joint collector on the ground that the land was classified as "Mushratuila Kidmat Inam" (service inam) attached to Deendar Khan Mosque and could not be vested in individuals, and that this classification was supported by Munthakab entries, the prime Minister's declaration. Gazette notilications, and was consistently reflected in land records since 19s5. Further, that the petitioner and his son admitted in their depositions to lack of kno'*,ledge about the plaint, absence of legal heir certificates, and cancellation of the oRCs, while respondent witnesses, including the Tahsildar, affirmed the land's service inam status- Therefore, he prayed this court trl dismiss \ 1,4 CRP.Nos.6556 and 6671 of 2017 stating that the same lacks merits

13. Having regard to rival submissions made and on perusing the material placed on record, it is noted that in OS.No.10 of 2016 which is subject matter of CRP.No.6483 of 2Ol7 revolving around entitlement of petitioner/plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.Al to A12 were marked, and on the other hand, on behalf of defendants, DWs.l to 3 were examined, and Exs'Bl to 820 were marked, wherein, the petitioner/ plaintiff asserted ownership and possession of the suit schedule property through ancestral inheritance, supported by revenue records, and {iled various exhibits to substantiate the claim, ub., Ex.A- 1 to A-4 comprised pahani records from 1954-55, 1996-97, and 1997-98, showing different names in the patta column across different years, including the name of petitioner/plaintiff, but also inconsistencies regarding whether the land was private or classified as inam ; Ex.A- 1O to A-12 included original title deeds and patta passbooks, further linking the plaintiff to portions of the land, but not conclusively covering the entire extent claimed in the plaint ; t 15 Legal notices under Ex.A-8 and A-9 demonstrated disputes regarding :rdministrative decisions affecting the [and, while Ex.A-S and A-6-pertaining to an earlier suit-did not specify which property was involved, failing to clarify the title of petitioner/ plaintiff conclusively. Additionally, Ex.A-7, a report from the l{ouse Committee, suggesting that Deendar Khan Mosque and its associated properties were not Wakf land, contradicting the contention of board.

14. On the other hand, the defendants maintained that the suit schedule properties were conditional inam lands notified as Wakf and attached to Deendar Khan Mosque, citing records from Ex.B-1 to B-2O; Ex.B-l containing an abstract from the book of endowments, and Ex.B-2 detailed the succession of grant, mentioning names linked to the mosque's ownership ; Ex.B-4, a Gazette notification from 1955, classifying extensive land as Mzrshrotul Khidmat, designated for religious purposes; Pahani records in Ex.B-S showing inam status aga.inst specific lands, though not all entries directly covering the disputed property ; Ex.B-7, another Gazette notification from L978, explicitly designating the lands under survey numbers 65613 and 59 as Wakf properties ; proceedings in Ex.B- 11 a 16 documenting an official board resolution to record these properties under Wakf endowments ; Ex.B-12 and B-13 granted occupancy rights to the plaintiff which were later overturned under Ex.B-16 following an appeal by the Wakf Board ; Ex.B-L7 and B-19 containing conflicting conclusions from different House Committee reports, while Ex.B-20 referencing a High Court order concerning various survey numbers.

15. That being So, it is seen that the Tribunal found inconsistencies in the evidence of petitioner/plaintiff, particularly regarding the extent of land covered and ownership claims, whereunder, the testimony of PW.1 contradicted itself regarding the sale of portions of the land, creating further doubt. It is further seen that there was also no documentary proof establishing the plaintiff as a legal heir of the prior holders of the grant or possession. That apart, the exhibits of petitioner/plaintiff failed to establish clear, undisputed possession of the entire suit schedule propertSr, while the Board produced stronger historical records supporting the Wakf classification. That apart, it is pertinent to note that Ex.B4, dated 1955, refers to an extent of 106 3 acresdesignatedaS,MashrutulKhidmat.andcitesFile Nos.225l2211953 AD and' 2241221L953 AD' However' the documents corresponding to these file numbers have not been exhibited. considering that the managing committee has been in possession of the property for a considerable period, the burden of proof in a suit for declaration lies squarely on the plaintiff to establish title and possession, and in the absence of cogent evidence displacing the long-standing possession of the committee and substantiating the plaintiff's claim, the challenge to Ex.B4 cannot be sustained. Given the lack of a prima facie case and absence of balance of convenience favoring the petitioner/plaintiff, the Tribunal dismissed the suit, concluding that the petitioner/ptaintiff had failed to substantiate, ownership over the disputed lands'

16. As far as cRP.No.6556 0f 2017 is concerned, on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff, PWs.l and 2 were examined' and Exs.Al to A21 were marked, on the other hand, DWs.l to 4 were examined, marking Exs-81 to E.22 on behalf of defendants. In this case, the petitioner/plaintiff contended ownership and possession of the suit lands, asserting inheritance from his ancestors, averring that the suit lands 18 were originary owned by Ashrafunnisa Begum @ pathru Bee, who died issueress, leading to succession by her rear brother Guram Mehdi who had four sons-Mir Hussain Ali, Mir Shoukath Ari, Mir painda Ali, and Mir Noor Ari-of whom the latter two died without heirs. consequentry, Mir Hussain Ali and Mir shoukath Ali became absorute owners and pattedars. After their demise, Mir Hussain Ali,s three sons inherited s0% of the suit lands, while Shoukath Ari's two sons, including the petitioner/plaintiff, inherited the remaining soo/o, solidified by a partition decree in os.No .17 0f lggl dated 24.L2.1gg3. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner/praintiff submitted Ex'A-l to Ex'A-21. Ex.A-l, the Sethwar record from rgg7, mentioning Hassan Ali sahab in the Kathedar column, while Ex'A-2, a pahani for 1992-93, listing syed Riyasath Hussain and Mir Ahmed Ali as pattedars, and various pahani records from Ex'A-3 to Ex.A-13 indicating different names in possession columns over the years, and some classifying the lands as Inam, raising serious ambiguity. The petitioner/plaintiff also reried on Ex.A- 74 to Ex.A_17, which pertained to oS.No-17 0f 1gg1 whereunder, it was observed that the said documents failed to explicitly describe the suit lands or confirm ownership ; Ex.A-lg, a House committee d 19 report, asserting that the lands attached to Deendar Khan Mosque were not Wakf properties, contradicting the defendants'stance. Legal notices (Ex.A-19, Ex.A-2O) and the judgment in OS No.17 of 1991 (Ex.A-21) were also cited, but it was observed that the same does not conclusively establish the title of petitioner/plaintiff. The Board counterecl that the suit lands were conditional service inam lands attached to Deendar Khan Mosque and officially recorded as Wakf properties. They presented Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-22 to support their claims. Ex.E]-1 contained Munthakab records from 1893, detailing the succession of the grant. F;x.B-2 specified the service condition of the inam over 39.04 acres across multiple villages. Ex.B-4, a Gazette from 1955, designated 106 acres as Mashrutul Khidmat attached to the mosque. Ex.B-S, a pahani from 1954-55, recorded the lands as Inam, while F;x.B-7, another Gazette from 1978, realfirmed their wakf status. The proceedings in Ex.B- 1 1 documented the appointm.ent of a Mutawalli for the mosque, further cementing its religious designation. Ex.B- L2 to Ex.B-15 initially granted occupancy rights to the plaintiff, but these were annulled under Ex.B-16 following an appeal by the wakf Board, which this court later upheld, establishing finality. The Board also presented I 20 conflicting House Committee reports-Ex.B-17 opposed Wakf classification, whereas, Ex.B- 19 decisively affirmed it. Additionally, Ex.B-2O contained a Court order restricting construction on the disputed lands, and Ex.B-21 and Ex.B-22 demonstrated Government acquisition of land under Survey No. 214, which had been allocated to a research station, thereby invalidating any ownership claims. Upon assessing the oral and documentaty evidence, the Court concluded that the petitioner/plaintiff had failed to establish uninterrupted possession or absolute title, noting gaps in succession proof and inconsistencies in land classification. Given the lack of prima facie evidence and the absence of balance of convenience favoring the petitioner/plaintiff, the Tribunal dismissed OS.No.6 of 2016, reaffirming the status of the lands as Wakf properties. L7. As far as CRP.No.667l of 2017 is concerned, on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff, PWs.l and 2 were examined, and Exs.A I to A47 were marked, on the other hand, DWs.1 to 3 were examined, marking Exs.B1 to 831 on behalf of defendants. In this case as well, the petitioner/plaintiff claimed ownership as ancestral inheritance, while the Board 2l I I asserted that the said properties were service [narn lands attached to the Deendar Khan Mosque and designated as Waqf properties' In support of his claim' the petitioner/plaintiff relied on Exs'AL to A47' including Sethwar records, Pahanies spanning multiple years' and a partition decree. However, the Tribunal observed that the said documentsfailedtosubstantiatetheclaimasSethwarentries und.erEx.AlreflectedthenameslikeHassanAlibrrtlacked anyreferencetothepetitionerorhisfather'Further'the Pahanies(Ex.A2toA10)identifiedthelandsaslnambut repeatedly listed others as possessors or patta holders' underminingtheassertionsofpetitioneroverownershipor possession. The Tribunal found that even the judgment and decreereferringtoosNo.l7l1991(Exs.Al1toA1ii)omitted descriptions of the disputed lands' rendering them irrelevant' andheldthatotherexhibits,suchas'statutoryandlegal notices, ROR proceedings, and Arabic declarations' also lackedclarityandfailedtoconclusivelylinkthesuitlandsto thetitleorpossessionofpetitioner.TheTribunalfoundthe evidence of the Board convincing that were presented through Exs.Blto83l,includingtheMunthakabissuedbytheNizam GovernmentinlSg3,whichdemonstratedtheconditional \ 22 grant of the lands as service Inam properties. The 1955 Gaz-ette notification under Ex.B4 definitively recognized the disputed lands as Waqf properties attached to the mosque. Succession records, ROR entries from 1989 to L997, and the Second House Committee Report (Ex B19 and 831) collectively reinforced the claim that the lands were tied to the mosque for religious purposes. It is seen that even in the cross- examination, the petitioner/plaintiff revealed admissions of awareness regarding the Waqf status of the lands.

18. Ultimately, the Tribunal observed that petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove his title, ownership, or possession over the suit lands, while the defendants successfully established them as service Inam lands attached to the mosque, and in view of the lack of pima facie possession of petitioner/plaintiff, combined with the robust evidence presented by the defendants, led to the dismissal of the suit, aflirming the lands as Waqf properties under the mosque's management.

19. Upon a comprehensive examination of the pleadings, rival contentions, and the voluminous documentary and oral 23 a evidence adduced in CRP Nos. 6483, 6556, and 667 L of 2017, this Court is of the opinion that the petitionerf plaintiff failed to establish a valid and enforceable claim of ou'nership or possession over the suit schedule properties. Furtl-rer, though the petitionerf plaintiff set up a plea of ancestral inheritance, alleging surccession from Ashrafunnisa Begum t.hrough her brother Gulam Mehdi and subsequent partition among his descendants, no succession certificate or legal heir certificate was filed to prove lawful succession or to estabhsh a direct legal relationship with the alleged predecessor-itr-title. That apart, the partition decree relied upon in OS.No.I7 of 1991, along with other documents such as Sethwar records and Pahani enl-ries, failed to explicitly describe or conclusively link the suit lands to the petitioner/plaintiff, and the <locumentary evidence presented across the cases was replete with inconsistencies as several Pahani records refle<:ted varying names under patta and possession columns, and some lands were classilied as Inam, and crucial entries either omitted the name of petitioner or reflected third parties in possession, thereby, undermining the claim of continuous or exclusive possession. In addition to that, the exhibits like legal notices and House Committee reports offered no delinitive support to 24 the title of petitioner, and the oral evidence, particularly the testimony of PW. 1, suffered from internal contradictions, including admissions regarding prior sale of portions of the land and awareness of the lands being notilied as Wakf.

20. In stark contrast, the respondents/defendants, particularly the Wakf Board, produced cogent and historically consistent evidence comprising Munthakab records from 1893, Gazette notifications from 1955 and 1978, succession registers, Pahani records identifying the lands as Inam, proceedings granting and subsequently cancelling occupancy rights, and House Committee reports (including Exs.B 17 and 819) which aflirmed the status of the lands as service Inam lands attached to Deendar Khan Mosque. The Board also relied on revenue proceedings, and Government acquisition records demonstrating that parts of the land were earmarked for public purposes, such ?S, a research station, thereby, further negating the claims of petitioner.

21. That being so, this Court is of the firm view that the Tribunal, after weighing the competing material, rightly observed that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to establish clear I 25 title, lawful succession, or continuous possession, whereas, the defendants succeeded in demonstrating that ;:he lands were notified Wakf properties governed under statutory provrsions- Given the rack of a primafaciecase, the absence of balance of convenience in favor of the petitioner/praintiff, and the superior evidentiary weight of the defendants,documents, the suits were rightly dismissed, affirming the lands as Wakf properties attached to Deendar Khan Mosque. Therelore, it is clear that there are no illegalities or infirmities in the orders under challenge, warranting interference of this court. There are no merits in these revision petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 22' Accordingly, these civ, Revision petiti.ns are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sl-rall also stand closed SD/. MOHD. tSMAIL DE UTY REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPYII CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Telangana State Waqf Tribunal. 2. One CC < S.SuneJinovocate 3' One cc to sriAbu n*ram 1ss Fon-r5wEf'eoro."t" fo ^S1i [OpUCl t, - 4. One CC to Sri rilono.rsmaii, norolri" (dij6 @ _ 5 Two CD Copies - Svs/pSL - "-' rv.Iqrr Iopucl HIGH COURT DATED:201061202s COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.6483, 6556 & 6671 ot 2011,,, -i i'rl. i, t. {,; $3 riiffi ), i.t : \, ?i l': -. {: r- :. -. r' * DISMISSING ALL THE CRps. 11 Lx, ItA