In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove ownership; failure to do so, coupled with defendants' adverse possession, results in dismissal.

Judgment :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 23-3-1990 in O.S.No.56 of 1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. The suit was filed by the plaintiff Angara Mosque, represented by its Mutavalli Md. Madina Khan, against the defendants 1 to 12 for declaration that the plaint schedule property as a Wakf property and inalienable under law and for possession of the same after evicting the defendants therefrom and for costs of the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows:

(a) It is pleaded that the plaint schedule property is part of the Wakf property that was endowed for the service of the mosque, more than hundred years ago. In the year 1860, the Inam Commissioner after due enquiry confirmed the schedule land as mosque service inam land of the Angara Mosque (plaintiff) and granted a title deed No.3561 to the then Mutavalli of the mosque. The said Mutavalli managed the property and rendered service to the mosque till 1949, when for the first time the then Mutavalli alienated illegally the said property by way of sale to the outsiders, who in their turn alienated the same by way of sale deed in the year 1968 to M/s. Srinivasa Sugar Factory, represented by its Proprietor Chittoori Suryanarayana. The said Suryanarayana sold away the said property to the defendants herein in March, 1982 and they are now in possession of the same.

(b) It is further pleaded that the schedule property is a Muslim Wakf property and it is inalienable under law. All the sale deeds executed are ab initio void. The defendants did not get any valid title to the suit property as the title deeds in their favour are void under law. The property being Wakf endowed for the service of the plaintiff mosque, the plaintiff mosque is entitled under law to take possession of the said property. Hence, the suit.

3. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the 1^st defendant, which was adopted by the other defendants by filing memos, are as follows:

(a) It is contended that the schedule property has all along been possessed and enjoyed as private property by the 1^st defendant and other defendants and their predecessors-in-title. Even if the schedule property be assumed to be such, it lost its character as Wakf property and as such, the 1^st defendant and other defendants prescribed title to the schedule property by adverse possession. For that very reason, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

(b) It is further contended that the schedule property is the personal property of one Molla Sheik Madeena Saheb. After his death, his wife Fakeer Beebi Saheba, his first wife's daughter Ammerunni Saheba, 2nd wife's daughters Safrunni Saheba, Feezunni Saheba and 2^nd wife's son Mohammad Dawood Saheb and Salma Beebi Saheba partitioned the plaint schedule property along with other properties belonging to Molla Sheik Madeena Saheb under registered partition deed dated 12-9-1944. Subsequently, some properties referred to in the said partition deed were sold away. Regarding the remaining properties, the sharers having been dissatisfied with the division, Mohammed Daweed Saheb, Fakeer Beebi Saheba, and Ammerunnisa, Safrunnisa, Feezunnisa and Salma Saheba, who are the son, wife and daughters of Molla Sheik Madeena Saheb, respectively, repartitioned the remaining properties under registered partition deed dated 24-4-1949 among themselves. In the said partition, Fakeer Beebi Saheba got Ac.1-00 in R.S.No.60/2 of West Khandrika to her share; while Mohammad Dawood Saheb got to his share an extent of Ac.1-05 cents in the same Survey number.

(c) It is further contended that Fakeer Beebi Saheba sold away Ac.0-63 cents in R.S.No.60/2 of West Khandrika to one Subbayamma under registered sale deed dated 02-6-1949, who in turn sold the same to one Chittoori Suryanarayana, Managing Partner of Sri Srinivasa Sugars, Wes