Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAGADEESAN
Ramzanshaw Thaikkal Mosque, Udayarkudi, by its Trustee, Hussain Sherif & Others
Versus
The Asst. Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai & Others
S.T.A. No. 10 of 89 & S.A. Nos. 1466 to 1468 of 1992
Decided On :Decided on : 30-01-1997
WAKF PROPERTY - GRANT - INTERPRETATION - ADVERSE POSSESSION - LIMITATION - REVENUE AUTHORITIES' JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT'S JURISDICTION - RES JUDICATA - WAKF ACT, 1959 - TAMIL NADU INAMS (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1963.
Fact of the Case:
The suit properties were granted to Ramzanshaw for maintaining the Thaikkal and Chavadi. The grant was confirmed under T.D. 1107 of Udayarkudi Village by the Inam Commissioner on 8th October 1861. The Thaikkal came to be known as Ramzanshaw Thaikkal. Ramzanshaw and his descendants were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties only in their capacity as muthuvallies and for maintaining the said Thaikkal and Chavadi. The alienation in favor of the defendants in the suits are void and the defendants in the suits cannot have any valid title or interest over the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The grant was made only to support the thaikkal with the small thatched chavadi. The suit properties have been notified as Wakf property in the year 1959 and the predecessor of the defendants did not raise any objection in respect of the said Notification within the prescribed period and as such the Notification has become final declaring that the property is wakf property. The issue of patta in favor of the defendants during the pendency of the proceedings before the civil court will not in any way affect the decision of the civil court.
Issues: 1. Whether the grant was in favor of the institution or to the individuals? 2. Whether the defendants had rebutted the presumption in favor of the religious institution? 3. Whether the defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession? 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 5. Whether the revenue authorities have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the entitlement of the patta? 6. Whether the dismissal of the applications filed by the respondents to implead themselves before the Inam Abolition Tribunal will affect the right or interest of the respondents in any manner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The grant was in favor of the institution and not in favor of any individual. When the grant is in favor of the religious institution, the person in charge of that institution cannot claim the property as that of his own or the grant is his personal one. 2. The defendants have not produced any parent document in favor of their vendors or concrete material to show or substantiate the title of their vendors. In all the cases, the defendants had produced only the sale deeds in their favor. Further the defendants did not examine any third person to establish the nature of their possession or source of title of the predecessor in interest. The defendants even in the oral evidence did not furnish any details with regard to the right of either their vendors or their predecessors in title. 3. The defendants have not pleaded that they have purchased the property from any one concerned with or having authority to represent the institution, the sale deeds relied upon by them are void and cannot clothe them with any rights or title and as such they have no title to the suit properties. 4. The suit is not barred by limitation as per S. 66-G of the Wakf Act, the period of limitation for the Wakf Board to file the suit for recovery of the property is thirty years and that too the period shall begin to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. 5. The revenue authorities do not have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the entitlement of the patta. When there are rival claims for the issue of patta, it is always open to the patties to indicate their claim before the Civil Court and the decision of the Civil Court will be binding on them. 6. The dismissal of the applications filed by the respondents to implead themselves before the Inam Abolition Tribunal will not affect the right or interest of the respondents in any manner. Equally those orders will not affect the Notification issued under S. 5(2) of the Wakf Act, declaring the properties as Wakf properties.
Final Decision: The Second Appeals are dismissed. The S.T.A. 10/89 is allowed.
JAGADEESAN, J.
1. The respondent in all the Second Appeals are the same. The appellants are different persons. Since the issues involved are common in these appeals, we have decided to dispose of the appeals by way of common judgement.
2. The defendants in O.S. No. 710 to 712/86 on the file of the Prl. District Munsif, Chidambaram are the appellants herein respectively in the Second Appeals. The respondents herein filed the said suits for recovery of possession and mesne profits. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiffs that the suit property has been granted to the Ramzanshaw in order to maintain the Thaikkal and Chavadi and the said grant was confirmed under T.D. 1107 of Udayarkudi Village by the Inam Commissioner on 8th October 1861. The Thaikkal came to be known as Ramzanshaw Thaikkal. Ramzanshaw and his descendants were in possesion and enjoyment of the suit properties only and their capacity as muthuvallies and for maintaining the said Thaikkal and Chavadi. The alienation in favour of the defendants in the suits are void and the defendants in the suits cannot have any valid title or interest over the suit property. The first plaintiff being the muthuvalli and the second plaintiff the Wakf Board have filed the suit for recovery of possession, as they are the owners of the suit properties.
3. The defendants in the suit disputed the claim of the plaintiffs contending that the first plaintiff is the muthuvalli in respect of the Masjid Namazga situated in a portion of the Ramansha Thaikkal. The claim for the patta in respect of the suit property and the enquiry thereon is pending before the Settlement authorities under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963) and as such the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and decide the rights of the parties. It is the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue authorities to decide the entitlement of the patta. In any event, the defendants had purchased the properties under registered sale deeds from those who claimed to be the owners of the properties and as such the defendants have prescribed their title by adverse possession. Further, the suit is barred by limitation as well as on the principle of res judicata.
4. The trial court, after elaborately considering the evidence both oral and documents available on record, had decreed the suit by the judgement and decree dated 13th October 1988. As against these judgements and decrees of the trial court, the appellants/defendants in the respective suits have filed appeals on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram in A.S. Nos. 1 to 3 of 1989 respectively. The lower Appellate Court also concurred with the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeals by Judgement and decrees dated 6th August 1992. As against these judgements of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, the appellants have preferred the present Second Appeals.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the original grant was in favour of one Ramzanshaw with an obligation to maintain the Thaikkal and Chavadi situated in Udayarkudi village and hence the grant is a personal grant to Ramzansha. It cannot be considered to be a grant in favour of the institution. It was further contended by the counsel for the appellants that during the pendency of the civil suit, the revenue authorities have granted patta in favour of the defendants in the suit and hence without seeking for the relief of declaration of the title, the suits filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession alone are not maintainable. As the defendants had purchased the property under registered sale deeds and in the absence of any evidence to show that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the property at any point of time the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the defendants have virtually admitted that the suit prope
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
