Writ Petition No. 33641 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11178 WP No. 33641 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 33641 OF 2017 (GM-WAKF) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M A ALFATHA S/O LATE MOHAMMED CHAND PEER AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 2. SRI MOHAMED AKRAM S/O LATE MOHAMMED YOUSUF AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
Legal Reasoning
3. SRI ABBOBAKER SIDDIQUE S/O LATE MOHAMMED YOUSUF AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 4. SRI ABDUL JALEEL S/O SRI ABDUL RASHEED AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 5. SRI MOHAMED SHAMSHEER S/O SRI ABDUL RASHEED AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO C-39 BIG MOSQUE LANE, C - DIVISION GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK - 561208 CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.D. AKRAM UPPIN., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. KOTHWAL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF NO 6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE- 560002 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11178 WP No. 33641 of 2017 2. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE SHAH INAYATH MASJID & JAMIA MASJID ANJUMAN-E-AHAL-ESUNNATHUL JAMATH SHAH INAYATH MASJID & JAMIA MASJID GAURIBIDANUR - 561208 CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT REP BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT SRI SHAIK ZIAULLA SAHEB (BY SRI. SYED SUHAIL ALI., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. P. USMAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIOIRARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL IN O.S.NO.6/2013 DTD.12.1.2017 ON I.A.NO.7 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. ii. To issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal in O.S.No.6/20113 dated 12.1.2017 on I.A.No.7 which is produced as Annexure-A and to issue any other appropriate writ/direction/order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity and law. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11178 WP No. 33641 of 2017 case the Respondent No.2 No.02/2024-25, has highly arbitrary and illegal (Annexure-A). surcharge in iii. Grant such other and further reliefs, including the costs of this writ petition in the interest of justice. 2. A suit in OS No.6 of 2013 had been filed before the WAKF Tribunal, Bengaluru seeking for the following reliefs; Wherefore, the Plaintiffs prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass judgment and decree to; (a) Declare the plaintiffs have perfecting their title being in continuous possession of the suit schedule property openly to the knowledge of the defendants from 1900; (b) Grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their Agents, Successors in Office, sub-ordinate officers, or any person or persons from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property. (c) Grant such other reliefs or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of the suit. 3. In the said suit an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure which came to be numbered as IA No.7 was filed seeking for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11178 WP No. 33641 of 2017 substitution of prayer No.(a) above with the following; Amendment sought for: IN PRAYER (a) of the plaint, the entire prayer of (a) is to be deleted and the same requires to be replaced as hereunder; “(a) declare the plaintiffs as the absolute owners of the suit schedule property who having inherited the same from their great grand father late Sultan Sab who acquired by virtue of Inam grant granted to him by the then His Highness Krishnarajendra Wadeyar of the State of Mysore”. 4. The said application having been dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2017 the Petitioners are before this Court. 5. The submission of Sri.Md.Akram Uppin., learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amendment which has been sought for does not change hte nature of the property. The property continuing to be the same, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the application and permitted the amendment to take place. 6. Sri.P.Usman., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would however contend that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11178 WP No. 33641 of 2017 initial prayer which had been sought for by the petitioner was by admitting the title of respondent No.1. Now by way of the substitution of the prayer the petitioners are claiming to have inherited the property through their great grandfather thereby claiming a title over the property and as such he submits that Tribunal has rightly considered the application and dismissed. 7. Heard Sri.Md.Akram Uppin., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.Usman., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Syed Suhail Ali., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused papers. 8. The prayer which had been sought for in the suit has filed has been extracted above, so also the amendment. 9. A perusal of the prayer as sought for in the original plaint would indicate that the plaintiff has sought for a declaration that they have perfected their title being in continuous possession of the suit schedule - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11178 WP No. 33641 of 2017 property openly to the knowledge of the defendants from 1900. 10. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner though is that in para No.3 the tracing of the title has been made claiming that the land has been granted in favor of the plaintiff's ancestor by the Maharaja of Mysore in the year 1900. In Para No.5 of the plaint as filed, the plaintiffs admitted that defendants are the owners of the scheduled property and have further gone on to State that the defendants have not taken any steps against the plaintiffs and/or their ancestors from the year 1900 to evict them. 11. It is further stated that the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as owners by perfecting their title being in adverse possession of the scheduled property, on account of the defendants having recently made attempts to dispossess the plaintiffs. 12. That being so, there being a clear and categorical admission made by the plaintiffs in para No.5 of the plaint that the defendants are the owners and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11178 WP No. 33641 of 2017 adverse possession is sought to be established against the said defendants, I am of the considered opinion that the prayer now sought to be replaced by claiming ownership by inheritance though based on para No.3 he is not sustainable. The very basis of the plaint which had been filed being on the basis of adverse possession cannot now be converted to one of title on the basis of inheritance. The Tribunal has rightly considered the same in para Nos.11, 12 and 13. 13. I do not find any infirmity in the said order the petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36