The main legal point established in the judgment is the nature of possession in the context of Wakf properties, the applicability of tenancy rights, adverse possession, and the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal in deciding possession disputes.

1. The proceeding is filed against judgment and order of Wakf Suit No.104 of 2009 which was pending before Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. The suit filed by the present respondent, Sayyed Zahurul-Haqu in respect of the property bearing Survey No.22 (Gat No.98), admeasuring 26 Acres situated at village Saundalgaon, Tahsil Ambad, District Jalna is decreed for relief of possession. It is the case of Respondent, plaintiff that this property belongs to Dargah Peer Saheb, it is Wakf Property. Both the sides are heard.

2. The aforesaid property is registered in the list of Wakfs published by the State Government in the year 1975. It is the case of plaintiff that he is Mutawalli and so he is entitled to take possession of the property. It is the case of plaintiff that his predecessor Sayyed Abdullah was Mutawalli and succession came to be granted in his favour on 7th December, 1988 under the provisions of Atiyat Act.

3. It is the case of plaintiff that, since long in the revenue record also the property is shown to be as the property of aforesaid Dargah. It is contended that such entries are there in Khasra Patrak, Pahani Patrak, record of consolidation and 7/12 extracts. It is the case of plaintiff that defendant Tukaram Hiwre, present appellant is in possession of this property. His possession is illegal. It is contended that by joining hands with revenue authorities Tukaram and his predecessors had got entered their names in revenue record, behind the back of Wakf institution and Mutawalli and those entries are not correct and they are not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that he had demanded the possession from defendant on 5th November, 2008 but the defendant flatly refused to hand over possession.

4. Defendant No.1, Tukaram contested the suit by filing written statement. Amongst other contentions, following main contentions were made by the defendant:

(i) The plaintiff is not Mutawalli.

(ii) Sayyed Abdullah Kadar Biyani (this person is said to be predecessor of plaintiff in the plaint) gave possession of the suit property for cultivation to the forefathers of defendant. This property was Service Inam land given to Dargah and on the condition of rendering services to Dargah the land was given in possession of forefathers of defendant on 30th February, 1928.

(iii) The possession of the suit property was firstly with Balaji, grand father of defendant, then with Dashrath, father of defendant and after the death of Dashrath the possession is with defendant and it is since October, 1974.

(iv) The name of predecessor of defendant was entered as protected tenant of this land in the revenue record and after the death of father even the name of defendant is entered as protected tenant.

(v) The name of grand father of defendant was entered in the revenue record since prior to 1954 and since then the defendant and his predecessors have been in continuous possession of the land and the possession was shown in Namuna No.9 of village, Khasra Patrak, Pahani Patrak and record of consoliation of lands.

(vi) The defendant has been rendering services to Dargah.

(vii) The defendant was not party to inquiry proceeding which was started under Atiyat Act by plaintiff for getting succession certificate and so that order is not binding on defendant, and

(viii) That the possession of the defendant is adverse possession and the suit filed by Mutawalli is not within limitation. The defendant has become owner of the suit property due to law of limitation.

5. The issues were framed on the basis of aforesaid pleadings. The Tribunal has held that, on the basis of the case of defendant, it was not possible for defendant to prove that he was tenant. It is also observed that due to the nature of defences taken by defendant, it is not possible for him to prove that he has become owner due to adverse possession. The Tribunal has held that the possession of the defendant is illegal and the suit is decreed.

6. Both the sides have given evidence. The evidence