Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
Karnataka State Board of Auqaf – Appellant
Versus
J.M. Jayakumar S/o Late J.S. Mahalingappa – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard Smt. Azra J. Dundge, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Manoj Gowda, learned counsel for the respondents representing Sri. P. Mahesha and Sri. Bhojegoyda T. Koller, Additional Government Advocate.
2. Second defendant in O.S. No.4/2016 is the revision petitioner challenging the Order passed by the Wakf Tribunal dated 08.07.2019 allowing the petition filed by the first respondent/plaintiff and declared that Public notice dated 10.12.2010 and Corrigendum dated 15.06.2011 bearing No.KBW/EDM/08/CTA/2010-2011 are not binding on the plaintiff. The property involved in the suit OS No.4/2016 is different from the property claimed by the defendants as Muslim graveyard and granted an order of permanent injunction from interfering with the suit property.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:
3.1 In respect of the following immovable property, initially suit for permanent injunction came to be filed, later on amended including prayer for declaration:
SCHEDULE
All the piece and parcel of Sy.No.10/3B, measuring an extent of 3 acre, situated at Cholgatta Village, Chitradurga Taluk, now called as Jayakumar
The court affirmed that the plaintiff's ownership of land is valid and separate from disputed Wakf property, grounded in legal precedents and substantial evidence.
The rejection of a plaint for lack of cause of action must be substantively justified; merely asserting lack of merit without proper consideration of presented evidence is insufficient.
(1) In a Revision Petition scope of consideration is limited and judgment/order under challenge can be interfered only in event of there being perversity seen on face of order and if conclusion reach....
The appointment of a Mutavalli by the Wakf Board is valid and binding, and the scope of judicial review in WAKF matters is limited to assessing the legality and propriety of Tribunal decisions withou....
Service inam lands for religious mosque services constitute inalienable wakf property; title claims via partition/sales thereon invalid; plaintiffs must prove independent title, not rely on defence w....
The jurisdiction for disputes concerning Wakf properties lies exclusively with the Wakf Tribunal, not civil courts, reinforcing the necessity for timely legal action under the WAKF ACT.
Disputes regarding Wakf property must be addressed solely by a Wakf Tribunal, not by civil courts, as observed under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, reinforcing prior court rulings.
The court asserted that ownership disputes under the Wakf Act do not preclude valid claims from individuals claiming title, regardless of Wakf notifications, provided they can substantiate their owne....
(1) Creation of Wakf – Alleged use of suit land as burial ground prior to 1900 or 1867 is not sufficient to establish a Wakf by user in absence of evidence to show that it was so used.(2) Principle o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
